The list below represents the number of refugees resettled in your state from fiscal year 2007-2013. The stats are maintained by the US State Department at their Refugee Processing Center in Virginia. Here is the website, but its difficult sometimes to find the statistics easily. The list below was discovered by one of our many friends from Tennessee.
This is what the Refugee Processing Center says of its job (you’ve heard me mention WRAPS before):
The Refugee Processing Center (RPC) is operated by the U.S Department of State (DOS) Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Rosslyn section of Arlington, Virginia USA.
At the RPC and at Resettlement Service Centers (RSCs), an interactive computer system called the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS) is used to process and track the movement of refugees from various countries around the world to the U.S. for resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
By the way, they keep statistics on the refugees’ religious affiliations, they just don’t make those public.
I think you will find this list as interesting as I do!
From 2007-2013 your state got this many refugees:
Puerto Rico 25
West Virginia 81
District of Columbia 199
South Carolina 812
Rhode Island 1,057
New Mexico 1,112
North Dakota 2,620
New Hampshire 2,864
South Dakota 2,986
New Jersey 4,073
North Carolina 13,977
New York 24,139
California 48,813 Total: 399,179
A few days ago I posted the news from Tennessee that a US Attorney and a special agent from the FBI were going to try to intimidate Americans into silence by suggesting that criticism of Islam was somehow against the law in the US.
My post is here, please read it if you haven’t already. There is a correction. Since the original story was published in the Tullahoma News, I hadn’t noticed that Tuesday’s meeting, organized by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee, was being held in Manchester, TN.
Now comes word that Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs), well known for her successful battle against the Ground Zero Mosque and her anti-Jihad public transit ads, and others concerned about the spread of Sharia law plan to descend on Manchester for a rally in defense of free speech.
You must stand up. Now. No one is going to do this for you. Only YOU can save you.
I strongly urge every Atlas reader, twiter and Facebook friend that can be in Tennessee to join us in a major demonstration for free speech on June 4th at 5:30pm Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd, in Manchester, Tennessee to be there. Change your plans, get off from work – g. Tweet it, Facebook share, get the word out.
AFDI, SIOA, and other major organizations will be rallying for free speech. On June 4th, an event titled “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” will be held from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd, in Manchester, Tennessee.
Speakers for the event are Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee and the FBI special agent that runs the Knoxville office.
Plan on attending the meeting in Manchester.Don’t think that they is just going away. They have declared war on very freedoms. While we still have freedom of speech – we must use it. Bring FREE SPEECH signs. Peaceful resistance.
Note to the Justice Department — we will fight you on this every step of the way. We will drag your dhimmi asses all the way to the Supreme Court. This is sharia enforcement, and we are not going to stand for it.
As I have mentioned on many previous occasions, Tennessee is being targeted for Muslim refugee resettlement. I think they would like nothing better than to get a symbolic foothold in the buckle of the Bible Belt. But, Tennesseans are fighting back. And, so is Geller!
Please tweet this news and get it to your facebook friends!
They are having uprisings against refugees and asylum seekers (again!) in the country touted by the likes of Michelle Obama and US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a model country for equality and justice.
I’ve been meaning to write about the latest wave of violence for the last few days, but those refugee terrorist stories in the US and the UK have been distracting me.
As you read this latest information on a nearly three-year-old study (why report it now?) on xenophobia in the land of Mandela, remember whatever this country does going forward cannot be blamed on racist white people. The country is run by the black African National Congress. That is why every story uses the “xenophobia” charge. “Racism” doesn’t work when both the persecutors and the persecuted are the same race!
Johannesburg – The attitudes of South Africans to migrants may be softening, but research shows that one third of people canvassed still believe refugees should live in camps on the borders, and more than half say they still don’t want want refugees anywhere in the country.
More than a third of people canvassed also still associate migrants with crime, a quarter say they are ready to join forces to stop migrants operating a business in South Africa, and 41 percent are all for mandatory HIV testing of refugees.
While the researchers involved in the 2010 Southern African Migration Programme suggest that growing contact between migrants and South Africans may be having a positive effect on the attitudes of South Africans, they warn of an “unyielding cohort” willing to use violence to address the perceived migrant “threat”.
The article goes on to attempt to convince readers that conditions are improving and people are “softening” toward migrants who want what the South African constitution promises every person, which is everything—peace, security, a home, a job, an education (blah! blah! blah!). Then this:
But the study warned of an “unyielding cohort”, and said that unless there was a concerted effort to change attitudes, “migrants and refugees will continue to be soft targets of xenophobic discrimination in South Africa”.
The latest research showed that a quarter of respondents were ready to jointly prevent migrants from neighbouring countries from operating a business, and a similar number were also willing to prevent migrants from moving into their neighbourhoods. [Interesting to think about—do poor and middle class black South Africans have a greater desire for self-preservation then Americans, or Brits or Aussies?—ed]
Also, just less than half (41 percent) of black and white respondents believed migrants were carriers of disease. The same number also wanted mandatory HIV testing of refugees, and 18 percent said HIV treatment should not be afforded to refugees. [BTW, the US permits HIV positive and TB infected refugees to enter the US, and you (taxpayers) are paying for their treatment—ed]
“Globally, South Africa is still the country most opposed to immigration, where nearly 80 percent of citizens either support prohibition on the entry of migrants, or would like to place strict limits on it,” the study said. A quarter of South Africans wanted migrants deported regardless of their skills status, and 63 percent wanted electrified fences on borders.
More than 60 percent of respondents of all races also believed migrants took jobs away from locals.
We have dozens of posts on the “Rainbow Nation” going back several years. Read all about the post-apartheid immigration problems in South Africa (and the hypocrisy), here. This S.A. mess is a prime example of the political Left’s intellectual dishonesty—the inability or unwillingness to recognize the powerful human forces behind ethnic nationalism.
And, one more thing, if you think this doesn’t affect you, it does! The US (Australia too) is now taking refugees from South Africa and they aren’t the white asylum-seekers.
Readers, the UN agency that basically tells the US State Department what to do and which refugees to bring to your towns is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The present head honcho at UNHCR is socialist Antonio Guterres. We just mentioned him in our previous post this morning, here.
After nine years of legal battles, a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) whistleblower has won her case.On May 28, 2013, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) – the court of first instance of the two-tier internal justice system through which UN employees contest violations of their rights – issued two judgments that found in favor of Caroline Hunt-Matthes, a former senior investigation officer with UNHCR’s Inspector General’s Office (IGO).
According to judgment 2013/85, Hunt-Matthes made numerous disclosures regarding UNHCR practices. These included, but were not limited to, disclosures about interference/obstruction into an investigation of an alleged rape of a UN staff member in Sri Lanka by another staff member; the decision of the IGO to hire a staff member who was himself under investigation by the IGO; the “failure to register a sexual harassment complaint” against the High Commissioner; the “unlawful detention of refugees by senior UNHCR staff, leading to the death of a refugee while in detention;” and a “report of sexual exploitation of a refugee by a UNHCR staff member.” (para. 34) In April 2006, Hunt-Matthes filed a request for protection with the UN Ethics Office, which is charged with reviewing retaliation complaints from whistleblowers. In December 2006, the Ethics Office issued a decision in which it found that she engaged in protected activity but concluded that there was no prima facie case of retaliation because there was allegedly no connection between the retaliation and her whistleblowing.
Read it all to see the far-reaching vindication of Hunt-Matthes and confirmation that she was retaliated against for blowing the whistle on the agency.
I’m reminded of UNHCR audit
For new readers, in 2012, the UNHCR came under fire for misusing millions of your tax dollars, here.
EXCLUSIVE: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR, two years ago was sitting on a stockpile of $437 million in unspent cash, even as a U.N. auditing agency warned that its sloppy handling of funds imperiled future contributions from U.N. member nations.
The report, issued last year but only introduced for member-state review in the U.N. General Assembly, cites UNHCR for sloppy bookkeeping, poor financial oversight, managerial disarray, and a lack of tools to judge how well it was doing its jobof helping tens of millions of the world’s displaced people.
The U.N.’s independent Board of Auditors used remarkably straight-forward language to lambaste the refugee agency, whose largest donor, the United States, contributed $712 million to UNHCR in 2010, according to the State Department. The auditors noted that the relief agency, which is financed largely by voluntary contributions, spent about $1.9 billion in 2010; its budget two years earlier was about $1.1 billion.
The auditors pointed out that there were “strong indicators of significant shortcomings in financial management” at the agency, headed since 2005 by Antonio Guterres, a former Socialist prime minister of Portugal. “This is a major risk for UNHCR,” the auditors warned, “given the increasing pressures on donors to justify why they provide public funds to international aid organizations.”
I don’t know if anything ever came of this revelation. But, to think that this agency has anything to do with the demographic make-up and economic situation of your American city is maddening.
Here is an overly long article in IRIN(a UN publication) about the growing “crisis” of what to do with millions of Afghan refugees living in Pakistan and Iran (many for decades) where Pakistan and Iran don’t want them. The UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) is trying to figure out what to do with them. So far, repatriation to the hell-hole that is Afghanistan isn’t going so well.
Below are the opening paragraphs. I searched for any mention of those dreaded words—third country resettlement—and didn’t see them (this time!). I did see that whatever happens, it’s going to cost us (the US and other Western countries) a lot of money for what the UN claims is the world’s most protracted refugee problem. (I wondered, aren’t the so-called Palestinian “refugees” the most protracted problem?)
UN says Islam is the basis for “international refugee law.” Therefore, Islam is welcoming, right?
Only a few years ago the UNHCR pronounced that the Islamic faith was the historical root of our modern-day refugee protection programs. In case you think I’m making that up, this is precisely what was reported in 2009, here.
New York, 23 June (AKI) – The 1,400-year-old Islamic custom of welcoming people fleeing persecution has had more influence on modern international refugee law than any other traditional source, according to a new study sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
High Commissioner Antonio Guterres said that more than any other historical source, Islamic law and tradition underpin the modern-day legal framework on which UNHCR bases its global activities on behalf of the tens of millions of people forced from their homes around the world.
So HC Guterres, just remind the Muslim governments of Pakistan and Iran of your report and ask why don’t they just keep them and love them?
That will never happen, instead the whole world is expected to give generously to build them villages back in the HOME country.
DUBAI, 3 May 2012 (IRIN) – As a meeting of representatives of the Afghan, Iranian and Pakistani governments and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) opened to discuss a new strategy for dealing with the most protracted refugee crisis in the world, NGOs working in Afghanistan raised a number of questions about the new approach.
The so-called Solutions Strategy for Afghan Refugees, to support Voluntary Repatriation, Sustainable Reintegration ad Assistance to Host Countries is an agreement between the three governments on a way forward for the 2.7 million Afghans registered as refugees in Iran and Pakistan; the estimated 2.4-3.4 million unregistered Afghans living in the two countries; and the nearly 6 million Afghans – one quarter of its population – who have returned from exile to very difficult circumstances. (See IRIN’s recent In-Depth look at the realities on the ground).
The two-day meeting in Geneva, which started on 2 May, invited international stakeholders – donors, diplomats, international organizations, aid agencies and others – to endorse the new approach, at a cost of nearly US$2 billion, which seeks to improve conditions in communities of origin in Afghanistan to encourage returns while supporting communities which host Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan, and providing Afghans in exile with skills training to help them upon their return to Afghanistan.
Read it all, if you’ve got the time.
You can bet there isn’t going to be a lot of Saudi money in this project when it can be wrung out of the US Treasury instead. Nor will any Muslim country (including Saudi Arabia) “welcome the stranger.”
Everyone needs to be watchful for the day when they all throw up their hands and say the only solution is for the US to wholesale scoop up a hundred thousand or so and bring them to the US using the same argument being used regarding Iraqi refugees—-we broke it, we fix it.