Category: Asylum seekers

Maine: Asylum seekers being lured to Lewiston, Mayor says STOP!

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

More problems for Lewiston, Maine which became the Somali capital of New England more than ten years ago now (see Somali Migration to Maine: It’s the welfare magnet!)

Now we see that the asylum racket has Maine by the short hairs as one of the few states that gives welfare benefits to “asylum seekers.”   Most asylum seekers are illegal aliens or people who came to the US on a visa of some sort (tourist visa, student visa etc.) and claim that if they go home to their country they will be persecuted.  The federal government only provides welfare to those who successfully are granted asylum (they become ‘refugees’ with all of the taxpayer supported benefits).   We learned just a few days ago that 70% or more of successful asylum seekers may be frauds.

Mayor Robert MacDonald: “All these people are is they’re tourists.” We can’t afford them all!

Maine’s governor is attempting to take away the carrots, here, but immigrants are protesting.

In the meantime, Africans headed to Maine!

From WGME.com  (hat tip: ‘pungentpeppers’) Emphasis below is mine:

LEWISTON (WGME) — They’re called asylum seekers; people who entered the country on a visa, then declared they can’t go home. In Maine, asylum seekers are eligible for General Assistance funds. But Lewiston Mayor Robert Macdonald says they are gobbling up too much of his city’s budget. And he wants a local pastor to stop helping asylum seekers relocate to Lewiston.

Mayor Macdonald says “We can’t support them like that.  We don’t have that kind of money.” Mayor Macdonald says asylum seekers are costing the city too much money. He’s asked Rev. Jean-Pierre Tshamala, a former refugee of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to stop encouraging asylum seekers to move here. He says it’s “really putting a financial strain on this community.”

Maine is one of the few states that help asylum seekers, by making them eligible for General Assistance. In the past six months alone, The City of Lewiston has helped more than 100 asylum seekers with expenses like food, rent, utilities and prescription medicines. The state does partly reimburse Maine cities and towns for the General Assistance funds they provide.

The federal government provides financial assistance to refugees who got approval in advance to enter the U.S. Asylum seekers are people who enter the U.S. with a visa, then say they’re unable to go home. So the feds give them nothing. Macdonald says “All these people are is they’re tourists. They’re tourists that have overstayed their welcome, I mean, overstayed their visa.”

Mayor Macdonald says Rev. Tshamala talked about bringing 60 asylum seeking families, now living in Portland hotels, to Lewiston. The mayor says if that happens, he’ll be forced to either cut services or raise property taxes. Mayor Macdonald says “We can’t do this to people. And I’ve told him, I’ve told the reverend this.”

Interesting that it’s a Congolese ‘refugee’ in Wyoming attempting to open that state to refugee resettlement.  And, just a reminder, last spring the State Department announced it will admit 50,000 Congolese to the US during the next couple of years.

We have an extensive archive on poor Lewiston, here.

Virginia: Government case collapses, Somali “pirate” seeks asylum in US

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment
Court says Ali Mohamed Ali not a pirate, now seeking asylum in US!
http://thesomalian.com/us-dropping-case-against-man-accused-of-piracy/

Update February 19th:  Writers at NRO blast Holder for botching this case, here.

The case against a middle-aged English-speaking “pirate” ended and now the question becomes, can Ali Mohamed Ali get asylum in the US thus setting up the problematic scenario that the Guantanamo Bay prisoners have also posed for out legal system.  Try them in the US and if they aren’t convicted, then what?

We already know our asylum system is a mess—70% or more are frauds and cheats.

But there is more, did the Obama Justice Department screw-up?

From Politico (hat tip: Judy):

The failed prosecution of an alleged Somali pirate — and the fact that that failure could leave him living freely, and permanently, inside U.S. borders — is highlighting anew the risks of trying terror suspects in American courts.

Just a few weeks ago, Ali Mohamed Ali was facing the possibility of a mandatory life sentence in a 2008 shipjacking off the coast of Yemen — an incident much like the one dramatized in the film “Captain Phillips.” Now, the Somali native is in immigration detention in Virginia and seeking permanent asylum in the United States.

Ali, who was accused of piracy for acting as a translator and negotiator for a crew of pirates, was partially acquitted by a jury in November after a trial in Washington. Prosecutors initially vowed a retrial but decided last month to drop the rest of the case against him.

That’s just the kind of situation that opponents of U.S. criminal trials for Al Qaeda suspects caught abroad have long feared: The government falls short at trial — and the courts eventually order an accused terror figure freed to live legally among Americans.

“It’s a trial, not a play. You don’t know how it’s going to end,” said Cully Stimson, a former military prosecutor and defense official now at The Heritage Foundation. “Justice has all sorts of twists and turns. … It really has to be thought through at the highest level of government before we take action to bring someone here.”

One current federal terrorism prosecutor said the Ali case and the potential for his eventual release is another reason why foreign Al Qaeda suspects picked up overseas should not be brought to the United States but should instead be detained at Guantánamo or some other facility.

“It’s a significant risk … to say, ‘Oh well, we’ll just turn him over to the immigration service’” if a criminal case falls apart, said the prosecutor, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “You can’t count on the justice system working out just the way you want it to.”

Even some proponents of closing Guantánamo and relying on American civilian courts to prosecute alleged terrorists agree that the collapse of the Ali case highlights the potential downside of bringing suspected terrorists to the United States for trial.

Read the next section about other cases and the pitfalls.  Then back to Ali’s case near the end of the article.  This was a dumb move by someone in the Obama Justice Department!  Ali had a good claim that he was a hostage negotiator, an official in Somalia, and seems to have been an unlikely pirate!   No, not getting soft on Somalis!  Just something stinks about this whole government case!

The Ali case went off the rails for the government in the face of his claims that he was solely trying to resolve the hijacking of the M/V CEC Future — an event in which 13 crew members were held hostage for 71 days. While prosecutors contended Ali was “every bit as responsible” as those who carried weapons, the middle-aged English speaker, who had spent more than two decades in the United States, may not have seemed like an eye-patch-wearing or AK-47-toting type.  [What he was doing in the US for 20 years (refugee?) and not becoming a citizen is a question I would like answered.—ed]

By the time of his arrest in 2011, Ali was serving as education minister for an autonomous area in Somalia. Officials lured him back to the United States by inviting him to attend an education conference. He was arrested when he landed at Dulles International Airport.

My guess is that he will be granted asylum.

‘Human Rights First’ praises ten open-borders REPUBLICANS who say ‘bring in the refugees!’

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment
Bring in the Muslims! The Brotherhood too!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/a-disturbing-event-the-american-conservative-union-embraces-an-islamist/

Or, in the case of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan maybe it means ‘bring in the Muslims!’

Update February 12th:  Just released by the Center for Security Policy—The Islamist enablers, the case against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, here.

These open-borders Republicans must be mad as hell that Boehner and the boys backed-off of so-called ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ for this year and thus limited the flow of legal cheap labor!

From Human Rights First (hat tip: Richard Falknor of Blue Ridge Forum):

Washington, D.C. –   As Republican leaders in Congress work through the party’s immigration reform priorities, ten of the nation’s most prominent Republican leaders released a statement today that urges the party to recommit to upholding the United States’ position as an international leader in protecting refugees fleeing oppression and seeking asylum.   The statement is signed by former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez; former Florida Governor Jeb Bush;  former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Tom Ridge;  Kansas Governor Sam Brownback; former Senator Mel Martinez;  Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform;   Suhail A. Khan, chairman of the Conservative Inclusion Coalition; Jim Ziglar, former Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); Alberto Mora, former General Counsel of the Navy; and Dr. Paula Dobriansky, former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs .

“The United States has granted asylum and provided resettlement to thousands of refugees who have fled political, religious, ethnic, racial, and other persecution,” wrote the Republican leaders. “In some cases, they are people who stood with America, against tyranny, even when it was dangerous or unpopular in their own country.”

Today’s statement challenges American leaders to uphold the nation’s promise to oppressed people who yearn to live in freedom by expressing their commitment to the following principles:

*Fair and enforceable immigration laws that reflect our national interests and uphold core American values;
*Protection for refugees fleeing from persecution and elimination of unnecessary barriers and challenges that are preventing legitimate refugees from entering the country;
*A fair and timely decision-making process for those seeking refuge; and
*Implementation of the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

The statement recalls the leading role the Republican Party has taken in these efforts.  [They use Reagan’s “shining city on a hill.”—ed]

[….]

The signatories noted, “It should be obvious to all that our immigration system is in dire need of an overhaul,” adding, “We must have fair and enforceable immigration laws that reflect our national interest and uphold core American values and our history as a country committed to humane treatment and dignity of the individual.”

Their full statement is here.  Very useful of the Republican refugee lobbyists to identify themselves!

We have an extensive archive here and at Potomac Tea Party Report on Grover Norquist (both go back for many years).  Someday all of those who got too close to Norquist will be running for the hills!

Related:  Another open-borders Republican is George Will.  I happened to catch Laura Ingraham and Will having the most heated discussion I’ve ever seen on Fox News Sunday, two days ago, here.  Will was arguing for the need for laborers and Ingraham asked ‘why have borders at all?’  He dodged the question.

NY Times: Obama security screening fix will first help those aliens already here

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment
Convicted Iraqi refugee terrorists got through old screening system and yet Obama now makes it even easier to get through!

Everyone is talking about it—the Obama Administration’s relaxation of security screening regulations originally put in place after 9/11.  As we have reported, here***, the “refugee resettlement contractors” were lobbying hard for the rule change because they want to get thousands of Syrians admitted to the US this fiscal year partly because they are embarrassed that the US has not stepped-up to open our “welcoming” doors, and partly because they are paid by the head to bring ’em in. 

Even the New York Times is talking about it (those bad ol’ Republican spoil-sports!):

Republican lawmakers are assailing new exemptions from antiterrorism laws the Obama administration issued this week for war zone refugees seeking to come to the United States, saying the rules are examples of unilateral action by President Obama that weaken immigration security.

The administration, under pressure to respond to the crisis of more than 2.3 million Syrians who have fled the civil war in their country, published two rules on Wednesday that will exempt refugees from provisions banning terrorists. The exemptions apply if the refugees provided only minor material support, such as meals or medical aid, to armed groups that have not been officially designated as terrorist organizations, or if they gave such support under pressure.  [That old sandwich canard!  Can you imagine a prospective refugee admitting that he/she gave a “sandwich to a rebel” at one time?—ed]

[…..]

“We are a nation of laws, and the executive branch should not be allowed to unilaterally suspend our immigration laws to provide benefits to those who have supported terrorists,” said John Cornyn of Texas, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration.

Administration officials and refugee advocates said the rules were a badly needed fix to sweeping antiterrorism laws passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

By the way, even the screening in place before last week didn’t keep those Iraqi refugee terrorists who went to Kentucky out of the US.  Maybe the rules needed strengthening not weakening!

Then get this! The NYT says 3,000 are asylum seekers! 

That means they have already entered the US illegally by coming across one of our borders or over-staying a visa! And, at minimum 70% could be fraudulent!

Officials said the exemptions, which would immediately affect some 3,000 asylum applicants, had been in the works for years.

***Check out the contractor Senate testimony—the Lutherans want 12,000 Syrians this year and the Catholics want 15,000 (no mention of favoring Christians!).  It is always a shock to new readers when they learn that Lutherans and Catholics are resettling Muslims in their towns and cities.

Secret internal government audit: at least 70% of asylum claims are fraudulent

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment
Poster boys for fraud in US asylum system—Boston Bomber Tsarnaev brothers!

Update February 13th:  CIS reported on the House hearing on asylum fraud, here, on Tuesday.

That is what the Washington Times reported this week here (hat tip:Erich):

At least 70 percent of asylum applications showed signs of fraud, according to a secret 2009 internal government audit that found many of those cases had been approved anyway.

The 2009 fraud assessment, obtained by the House Judiciary Committee and reviewed by The Washington Times, suggests a system open to abuse and exploitation at a time when the number of people applying for asylum in the U.S. has skyrocketed, particularly along the southwestern border.

Another report obtained by the committee suggests that the government isn’t detaining most of those who apply for asylum, including those awaiting a final judgment. [As we learned this week, lawyers like those at the ACLU, are working hard to keep more asylum seekers out of detention!—ed]

Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said the documents taint the credibility of the asylum system, which is designed to provide an outlet for foreigners who face real risks of being harmed if they remain in their home countries.

“Asylum fraud undermines the integrity of our immigration system and hurts U.S. taxpayers. Once individuals are granted asylum, they receive immediate access to all major federal welfare programs. Our immigration system should be generous to those persecuted around the globe, but we must also ensure our compassion isn’t being abused by those seeking to game the system,” Mr. Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, said in a statement to The Times.

“Because our immigration laws are so loosely enforced by the Obama administration, we should not be surprised to see so much fraud in the system,” he said. “President Obama’s continued refusal to enforce our laws on the books encourages more illegal immigration and invites fraud.”  [This asylum fraud was going on in the Bush years as well, the report says it looked at claims made in 2005!—ed]

[….]

The investigators said even the 70 percent combined fraud number may be low because some of the other 30 percent of cases had problems that weren’t detected.

The report was labeled “Draft” and apparently was never released.

There is more, read it all.

Checking some numbers!

Go to the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Annual Flow Report’ for 2012.  Just a reminder, and one the Washington Times story mentions too, refugees are brought into the US through the US State Department, but asylum seekers ‘find their way’ to America on their own steam (they might be visa overstays, or illegal border crossers) who then ask for asylum and claim they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they go home.

In 2012 we brought 58,179 refugees to the US and there were 29,484 aliens granted asylum.  Assuming a 70% fraud rate, that means that 20,638 individuals lied or cheated and are now on the way to US citizenship.  And, in the meantime they are dipping into taxpayers’ wallets.