Hey Malcolm, these mostly Muslim boat people are not our problem!
Check out the news here at Australia’s Nine News.
So here’s my idea!
Donald Trump could get the last laugh by cancelling the “dumb deal” Obama agreed to that would bring up to 1,250 of Australia’s unwanted so-called ‘refugees’, presently held in offshore detention facilities, to (your!) American towns.
Bringing them here would save Turnbull’s political neck, while American taxpayers foot the bill and risk our lives! Some deal!
See my post yesterdayabout the deal! (A deal implies both sides get something!).
Looking for something you can do?
Contact the White House and tell them to scrap the “dumb deal” with Australia! Click here.
Then tell your Congressman too!
Electing Donald Trump has apparently changed nothing in the way local refugee resettlement agencies contracted by the federal government treat taxpayers—the very people paying their salaries!
I’m beginning to get calls from some of you working in your communities telling me that you are (again!) being barred from “stakeholder” meetings.
For new readers “stakeholder” meetings occur in resettlement towns and cities usually quarterly and it is where the contractor gets together with impacted agencies and departments in your town—like the school system people, health officials, criminal justice officials, and sometimes non-profit group members who are supportive of more refugees for the town. Not usually admitted are concerned members of the taxpaying public who might want a smaller number brought to their neighborhoods.
(At this time of year they often talk about how many refugees your town can take in the coming fiscal year.) State Department bureaucrat Larry Bartlett told then Senator Jeff Sessions that there is “consultation” in towns targeted for resettlement. What he didn’t say is that anyone in opposition was not welcome to the meeting!
I had to laugh during testimony to the Senate in 2015 when Lawrence Bartlett, with a straight face, told Senator Jeff Sessions that refugee planning for towns was done in full and open planning meetings called “stakeholder” meetings and implied the consultation was open to all citizens of the towns. (Come to think of it, maybe he doesn’t know that his contractors are turning people away!)
This is what I saidin October 2015 (reporting on Sessions’ hearing) about “consultation” and stakeholder meetings:
Consultation is a joke!
Near the end of the hearing, Senator Sessions asked about whether there was consultation with the communities that would be receiving the refugees, and Lawrence Bartlett (US State Department) said with a straight face that there are quarterly consultations with stakeholders and elected officials.
He did not mention that the taxpaying public is prohibited from attending! He did not mention that if elected officials are hostile, they aren’t invited. He did not mention that in many communities there is no quarterly meeting. He did not mention that the meeting usually only involves ‘stakeholders’ that are friendlies. Go here to a post we wrote in May about the efforts by citizens in St. Cloud, MN to get into a ‘quarterly consultation’ (while ‘leaders of the Somali ‘community’ had been invited), but were told initially that they were not permitted to attend. (After a public outcry, a few representatives of the concerned public did eventually gain entry to a sanitized meeting.)
Readers are always asking me what they can do. You can do this!
Go here and find a contractor operating near you (even one within a hundred miles).
Call them and ask when the next ‘stakeholder’ meeting is scheduled and tell them you want to come. If they say no, call your member of Congressand complain. I know you think they are useless, but you must hound them!
While you have the contractor (they call themselves ‘affiliates’) on the phone ask for the 2017 R & P ABSTRACT. They may pretend they don’t know what you are talking about, but be polite and persistent.
Even if we should be seeing the documents before they go to Washington, they are not going to give you the FY18 one they are working on at this minute, but there is no reason for them to withhold the 2017 version. Tell them you want all of the pages including any letters of support attached.
The best one I ever saw is this one from Reno, Nevada. BTW, they tout Tesla as one of the global companies looking for laborers.
For FY18, they will claim it is a planning document not yet submitted to the US State Department. The ABSTRACT is the document in which they justify how many refugees your town could get starting on October 1, 2017 and you should have every right to know what they are asking for.
I’ve talked about those documents here at RRW until I’m blue in the face. Use my search function for the words R & P Abstracts.
The Trump team did not need an Executive Order for this—for creating more transparency and involvement in the local planning process!
Sure hope he is working on this because it would only require some regulatory tweeks, not an EO!
When the Trump team came in to office and crafted those now stalled Executive Orders, they said this (below) in the first order. I see no reason why this effort should be stalled and I sure hope that they are working on it behind the scenes. They can accomplish this goal with some simple regulatory tweeks!
However, from what I’m hearing about the process on-going in communities, nothing is changing. Secrecy is still the watchword as much now as it was under Obama.
Here is what the early Trump EO said about a larger role for targeted states and communities:
“It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.”
If anything the Dept. of State has become more secretive. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe they held an annual scoping meeting that normally happened in May (for all the years I’ve been writing this blog) where they at least pretended to get public input about the program.
But, it isn’t just the Meatpacking industry, it is the Chamber of Commerce, the hospitality industry, other food processing and manufacturing that has become dependent on the refugee labor force that you and I pay to bring to America (and support with our social service dollars!) See myprevious postwhere CIS refutes a very big lie. Tyson Foods at Storm Lake, Iowa changing the demographic makeup of heartland towns, paying low wages to refugees and lobbying Congress for more!
In a few days I’ll tell you why I am re-posting this information about greedy companies like Tyson Foods lobbying Congress side by side with the refugee contractors/’religious’ charities who claim they are working for the good of humanity.
Have a look at some of my recent posts on Big Meat (particularly Tyson Foods!):
My list is huge and I could go on, but you get my drift. Click herefor my complete archive on Tyson Foods.
Big Meat’s desire for cheap labor, in conjunction with the lobbying efforts by the NGO refugee industry, produce a powerful juggernaut working against taxpaying citizens (we have no lobbyists) just looking for reform of the system that would include some say as to what is happening to our home towns and how much it’s costing us—financially, culturally and security-wise!
If you really want to do something (rather than sending angry comments to blogs and facebook pages), call your member of Congressthis week and next—tell them to defund the US Refugee Admissions Program, then get to work reforming it.
This news was all over my alerts yesterday morning (one version of the story at Business Insider):
Study finds refugees actually pay the US government thousands more than they get from it
The glowing (and deceptive) report was clearly released now as a run-up to World Refugee Day next Tuesday and has probably been widely distributed on Capitol Hill by the legion of lobbyists for the refugee industry.
My reaction was that the conclusions fly in the face of all common sense. And, LOL!, I wondered right away whether they included the costs to the criminal justice system. Imagine how much those life prison terms of some refugee murderers and terrorists cost the American taxpayer! Esar Met, a Burmese refugee raped and murdered a little girl in his apartment complex shortly after arriving in the US (he had surely not paid in any taxes yet!) and is doing life in prison. Someone with some economic training and the interest should figure out what it costs taxpayers for these expensive trials and life sentences. One of my many posts on Met is here: https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2014/01/14/utah-medical-examiner-little-girl-suffered-excruciating-pain-before-dying-from-tear-to-heart/
So, I wondered if there was a rebuttal and sure enough there is!
If you see the deceptive news published in your newspaper, you must respond with a ‘letter to the editor’ using key points of Jason Richwine’s rebuttal. You can’t let their propaganda go unanswered.
The Center for Immigration Studiesresponded here this morning (emphasis is mine):
Refugees do not pay their own way
A working paper released this week by Notre Dame economists William Evans and Daniel Fitzgerald makes the head-scratching claim that refugees, despite below-average incomes and high rates of welfare use, pay $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits during their first 20 years in the United States. Immigration-boosting wonks such as Matt Yglesias and Dylan Matthews immediately trumpeted the findings, and the Washington Post and FiveThirtyEight added favorable write-ups.
They should have been more skeptical. The claim that refugees contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits is simply implausible.
[….]
So how does the Evans-Fitzgerald paper come to such an implausible result? First, the authors count all (or nearly all) taxes paid by refugees but reduce the services they receive to six social programs — cash welfare, SSI, Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid. All other costs that governments might incur from immigration — housing, infrastructure, education, law enforcement, and so on — do not count.
Second, they fail to adjust for the underreporting of those social programs…
[….]
Third, the paper excludes refugees’ minor children. When refugees cannot afford to provide food, housing, or medical care to their children, taxpayers foot the bill. Most of those costs are omitted.
Fourth, the authors restrict the refugee age range to 18-65, cutting off the analysis just before the age where most people stop working and begin participating in the nation’s costly retirement programs.
By the way, we bring in a significant number of refugees to the US over the age of 65 who immediately draw on SSI. More here.
Don’t miss CIS’s previous detailed study of the cost of refugees to taxpayers, here. Middle Easterners are especially expensive!
This is posted in my ‘What you can do’ category (created because new readers are asking). If you see the deceptive report mentioned in your local newspaper do not let it go unanswered!Send a letterto your member of Congress too and tell him or her (in advance) to watch for the propaganda (Big Lie!) campaign about refugees supposedly adding to the US economy. (The cheap labor supply might add to the bottomline at Tyson Foods, but not to the overall economy!).
