More from Springfield, MA and that city’s refugee overload

Here is another story on the Springfield dust-up with the US State Department from earlier this past week.  (Hat tip: Joanne)

We have heard all of this before, but it’s important to continue to build our archive of problems from coast to coast because after a short time some of these local stories disappear and we don’t want that to happen.

Here is one good thing that all readers should keep in mind about this story—getting publicity outside of the blogospere is an important goal.   Normally the mainstream media treats the whole refugee issue with kid-gloves, and silly stories about refugees seeing their first snow abound!  So, please help keep this controversy going!   For example, if your local paper publishes a story about refugees in your town, send in a comment with a link to the Springfield story.  It will help give backbone to your politicians.

The bad thing about this Springfield case is that the media (with the volags input of course) is directing this story to a conclusion that the contractors need more taxpayer cash, when instead the conclusion should be—if we can’t afford the refugees, stop bringing them!

From The Republican which begins in the time-worn way of showing us a struggling refugee (who loves America anyway).  Do reporters learn that in J-school (in Shaping the News 101)?

So, where is hubby? There has to be a man in her life! Or, is she completely dependent on you for her financial well-being?
Photo by Stephanie Barry

So where is her husband???  (Two little ones and it sure looks like she is pregnant, although she does say she is eating well.)   And why are we taking Muslim refugees from Muslim Turkey???  If she got to Turkey she was safe!***

(What the heck!  Go here and see that we have brought over 3,000 “refugees” from a modern ‘European’ country—Turkey—this year alone! )

The latest from Springfield:

SPRINGFIELD — From a refugee camp in a war-torn area of Africa, to a stopover in Turkey to an apartment building near downtown Springfield, 21-year-old Hiboxasan Iyai found the challenges of her birthright were not yet over.

Among hundreds of Somali Bantu refugees resettled here since 2003, Iyai – a mother of a 3- and 1-year-old, has been struggling to feed and clothe her children since she arrived two months ago – she said during an interview hobbled by communication barriers.

With her limited English, Iyai attempted to sum up her plight through what amounted to an elaborate game of charades and about a dozen words of English.   [Of course this means she isn’t going to be working for a living anytime soon!—-ed]

She has only been here two months, the building had code violations previously, so why did the Lutherans put her here?

America good,” she said with a broad smile, standing in the hallway of her apartment at 400 Franklin St, a triple-decker home that houses three families of Somali refugees run by a landlord based out of Meriden, Conn.

The property was one of several cited by the city for deplorable, “uninhabitable” living conditions earlier this year – primarily because mice and rats had infested the building so pervasively they were nibbling on a disabled child’s feeding tube on the third floor, according to city records linked to the house.

However, the owner, a member of MEG Realty LLC out of Connecticut (who would only give his first name, Eric) said he bought the vacant apartment building two years ago, gutted it, and rebuilt it with new windows, doors and appliances.

“It’s not my fault. It’s the tenants’ fault,” he said during a telephone interview on Thursday. “If they don’t keep the place clean and leave food out, it’s going to bring mice and rats.

Cash support for 90 days which gives them time to get signed up for a whole array of social services.  Remember Senator Rand Paul got sneered at when he said they ‘bring ’em in and sign ’em up’ for welfare.

According to the state Office of Refugees and Immigrants, refugees receive cash assistance, “basic needs support reception” and placement services, funded through the U.S. State Department. For the first 30 days after arrival, host agencies provide assistance with housing, furnishings, food, clothing and transportation to job interviews. During the first 90 days, host agencies also provide help with applying for Social Security cards, registering children for school and tutelage on using public transportation and other public services. They also receive temporary medical coverage.

Sarno and Cotter suggested certain refugees, including many Somalis, appear to need far more support than the resettlement agencies provide and for far longer than 90 days. [That is where the Lutherans should bring in their private Christian charity, right!—ed]

Lutherans:  We want them to be free!  That’s why we bring them to America (give me a break!).

Jozefina Lantz, director for services for New Americans for Lutheran Social Services, said the local agencies prepare “very responsibly” in resettling refugees and providing support services.

There is a federal timeline for providing support, “but that is too short and we certainly serve refugees past that timeline.”

“If the refugee family runs into issues [a] year down the road they certainly know where to come and we will always help and always have,” Lantz said. “But let’s say three years down the road — that is not something we would follow.

Refugees are resettled to be free. To move freely to live freely. They are not our charge per se. We don’t do that level of control and monitoring.”

Food is good, Lutheran Social Services “not good.”

Iyai seemed to suggest that she was happy in her apartment, but struggled to show a reporter her budgeting challenges. She pulled a slips of paper from her wallet showing a $630 monthly cash allowance against a $540 rent payment and a $150 utility bill.

“Food, good,” she said, referring to her monthly food allowance.

She added that she had been resettled by Lutheran Social Services.

“Not good,” she said, unable to provide more detail in English.

Now the poor Somali girl is in trouble!

***This Turkey reference may be the most interesting thing in the whole story.  For 6 years—from sea to shining sea—we have heard all of the sorry facts reported here (Springfield is just one more in a long list of problem cities).

But, I want to know what is this about bringing thousands of “refugees” from, or through, Turkey?  If they have reached Turkey they should be safe, at least the Muslims like Iyai should be!

Turkey had resumed regular flights in and out of Mogadishu sometime in the last year, I remember reading that.  They aren’t flying in there and picking up refugees to send to the US are they?  3,000 plus Somalis?  Or, are they sending their Kurds to us in such large numbers?  We know it isn’t the Syrians passing through Turkey (yet!).

Whatever the answer is, it looks like the US State Department is once again doing favors for other countries (we know Obama loves Erdogan).  Are the refugees ‘chips’ to be used in a larger political game?

The economic and social price is paid by Springfield (and all the other preferred resettlement cities) which get to pay for the care of the refugees probably for decades.  The Obama Administration (Bush too) gets brownie points with the humanitarian crowd.  And, the Lutherans get job security, a warm fuzzy feeling, and move on to the next batch of paying clients.

Western NGOs in warring Muslim countries: money is welcome, but not their ideas

I expected this article at Strategy Page (‘The growing war in Syrian refugee camps‘) to be more of the same about the crime rampant in UN refugee camps like Zaatari in Jordan.  It started out that way, but evolved into a not-so-attractive picture of “do-gooder” non-governmental agencies (NGOs) who are ripe for the picking in the Muslim world.

Black Hawk Down: In 1993, NGOs called in the military to help with “humanitarian aid” to disastrous effect in Somalia.

From Strategy Page  (Emphasis is mine, and in some cases I’ve divided paragraphs for easier reading):

Aid groups are also beginning to confront the harmful side effects of their good works. The worst side effect is how rebels and gangsters sustain themselves by stealing food and other aid supplies, as well as robbing the NGO workers themselves. At first the main UN complaint is the increasing attacks on aid workers. In the worst cases aid workers are assaulted or robbed and that eventually escalates to some getting killed. This is a trend that has been on the march upward for several decades. Islamic radicals have been particularly active in terrorizing and killing the foreigners who are there to help them. UN aid workers are usually caught between different factions within the refugee camps. All factions see the UN and other aid workers as a source of income and supplies.

In the case of Syria there are also problems with Sunni Islamic radicals keen on chasing out all non-Moslem foreigners. The refugee camps for Syrians are particularly vexed by criminal gangs that prey on everyone, especially the women.

The “humanitarian industrial complex” has grown exponentially!

NGOs are, for the most part, charitable organizations that take money from individuals, organizations, and governments and use it for charitable work in foreign countries. The Red Cross is one of the oldest and best known NGOs (dating back to the 19th century), although the Catholic Church (and many other religious organizations) had been doing similar work for centuries. In the mid-20th century the UN (and its many aid agencies) became the largest NGO. In the late 20th century the number of NGOs grew explosively. Now there are thousands of them, providing work for hundreds of thousands of people. [And, largely funded by taxpayer dollars as we have learned on these pages—ed]

“Efficiency” is the reason given for governments contracting NGOs, but I think it goes deeper than that.

NGOs are not accountable to taxpayers in the way government employees would be and I think that is one of the top reasons this monstrosity has grown.  But, I also think that the power-hungry leadership, that wants to tell everyone else how to live, has managed to increasingly raid the treasury of Western governments.

The NGO elite are well educated people from Western countries that solicit donations, or go off to disaster areas and apply money, equipment, and supplies to alleviate some natural or man-made disaster. Governments have been so impressed by the efficiency of NGOs (compared to government employees) that they have contracted them to perform foreign aid and disaster relief work that was once done by government employees.  [Nah! Again it’s my opinion that its about not having to be accountable to the taxpayers—ed]

NGOs bring in a bunch of do-gooder outsiders with unwelcome ideas on how the locals should live.

Problems, however, have developed. The employees of NGOs, while not highly paid, are infused with a certain degree of idealism. These foreign NGOs bring to disaster areas a bunch of outsiders who have a higher standard of living and different ideas. Several decades ago the main thing these outsiders brought with them was food and medical care. The people on the receiving end were pretty desperate and grateful for the help.

But NGOs have branched out into development and social programs. This has caused unexpected problems with the local leadership. Development programs disrupt the existing economic, and political, relations. The local leaders are often not happy with this, as the NGOs are not always willing to work closely with the existing power structure. While the local worthies may be exploitative, and even corrupt, they are local and they do know more about popular attitudes and ideals than the foreigners.

NGOs with social programs (education, especially educating women, new lifestyle choices, and more power for people who don’t usually have much) often run into conflict with local leaders. Naturally, the local politicians and traditional leaders have resisted or even fought back. Thus the Afghan government officials calling for all NGOs in the country to be shut down. That included Afghan NGOs, who were doing some of the same work as the foreign ones. The government officials were responding to complaints from numerous old school Afghan tribal and religious leaders who were unhappy with all these foreigners, or urban Afghans with funny ideas, upsetting the ancient ways in the countryside. Moreover, the Afghan government wanted to get the aid money direct, so they could steal more of it.

NGOs help create more warfare by calling in the military.  New UN Ambassador and “humanitarian hawk” Samantha Power has a fancy name for this called “the responsibility to protect” which basically means one can go to war if one’s intentions are pure and it is to protect the downtrodden (whoever they are, I suppose determined in each case by the PC do-gooders).

NGOs are not military organizations but they can fight back. They do this mainly through the media, because they also use favorable media coverage to propel their fund raising efforts. NGOs will also ask, or demand, that the UN or other foreign governments send in peacekeeping troops in to protect the NGOs from hostile locals.

This had disastrous effects in Somalia during the early 1990s. Some NGOs remained, or came back, to Somalia after the peacekeepers left. These NGOs learned how to cope on their own. They hired local muscle for protection, as well as cutting deals with the local warlords. But eventually the local Islamic radicals became upset at the alien ideas these Western do-gooders brought with them and began to chase all NGOs out.

NGOs in the middle of civil wars!

This move from delivering aid to delivering (often unwelcome) ideas has put all NGOs at risk. The NGOs have become players in a worldwide civil war between local traditional ideas and the more transnational concepts that trigger violent reactions in many parts of the world. Now, concerned about doing more harm (or a lot of harm) than good, NGOs are at least talking about how to deal with some of the dangerous conditions their presence creates.

Readers these are largely Muslim civil wars.  How about if we follow the Palin Doctrine—let Allah fix it!  We would save ourselves a lot of lives, money and headaches!


Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott: “This is our country and we will decide who comes here.”

Note to readers:  I started this post two days ago which is an eternity in the on-going back and forth in Australia over the illegal alien boat people seeking asylum, so by now this may not be the latest news.  However, it is still worth posting because Americans, just for a moment, imagine having a political leader who speaks as frankly as Abbott!

Abbott: Enter Australia illegally and you will NEVER get permanent residency. Photo: Daily Telegraph

Australia is ahead of America in coming to the crisis point on immigration (both parties want to curb it because the voting public has had it!).

In the upcoming election, what to do about the boat people arriving by the thousands and asking for asylum is, as far as I can tell, THE pivotal issue in determining who will be the next Prime Minister.

Labor Prime Minister Keven Rudd recently instituted the PNG plan, go here for our coverage, and now the opposition coalition has a potentially more effective plan.

Those determined to be legitimate asylum-seekers will be regularly reviewed and eventually returned to their home country when things calm down there—they will never be given permanent residency in Australia.  That should slow the flow!

Here is the story at the Brisbane Times.  It is a long article and I’ve just selected a few bits that interest me and might encourage you to read the whole thing.

The Coalition has ramped up its hardline stance on refugees, announcing on Friday that almost 32,000 asylum seekers who have already arrived in Australia by boat will never get permanent settlement as well as stripping them of the right to appeal to the courts.

The Coalition would also introduce indefinite work-for-the-dole obligations for those found to be refugees.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott channelled former prime minister John Howard from 2001 when announcing the change to the policy in Melbourne.

”The essential point is, this is our country and we determine who comes here,” Mr Abbott said.

Boat people will NEVER be granted permanent residency!

According to Department of Immigration figures compiled last Friday, 31,986 asylum seekers are either in the community on bridging visas, in community detention, in mainland detention centres or on Manus Island and Nauru.

Mr Morrison and Mr Abbott said on Friday that a Coalition government would deny them the right to ever settle in Australia, creating a crucial point of difference between the two parties, now united on stopping the boats.

As part of the toughened policy, a Coalition government will scrap the right of asylum seekers to appeal to the courts, which in the March quarter brought the number of asylum seekers who were granted refugee status from 65.3 per cent to more than 90 per cent.


Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop said that on the contrary, the Coalition’s policy took away the people smugglers’ ”product” – which was permanent residency in Australia.

”We won’t be offering permanent residency,” she told Channel 9. ”When the situation improves [in asylum seekers’ home countries], they can go home.”

There is more, read it all.

For our complete Australia archive, click here.

Endnote:  When you visit the story at the Brisbane Times, note the photo of the cute “refugee kids” playing behind a fence, then contrast that photo (the type always used by the media) with these photos of ‘asylum seekers’ in Australia at Bare Naked Islam.