To make sure a future President will never be able to do what Trump did to them!
[R]eopening the doors to refugees is “how we will restore the soul of our nation.”
(Chairman Joe)
We frequently talk about the refugee ceiling that a President places on the US Refugee Admissions Program, but the Open Borders agitators in the resettlement industry aren’t satisfied with that.
They want to make sure that no future President can do what President Trump did to them and that is set an extremely low ceiling for admission of third worlders into American towns and cities.
They want a floor of 95,000 so they can be assured of a steady stream of US taxpayer dollars to their coffers!
In other words, they want no interruption to their money supply-chain from your wallets to their wallets.
Broken by Trump, US refugee program aims to return stronger
Despite potential problems reopening the pipeline, advocates say it’s important that Biden set this year’s ceiling at 125,000 people to start building the program back up.
He’s also vowed to seek legislation setting an annual baseline of 95,000 refugee admissions, which would help stabilize funding for resettlement agencies. *** Biden’s campaign said the number could go beyond that “commensurate with our responsibility, our values and the unprecedented global need.”
Yup! Joe, Ted and Jimmy Carter are responsible for the Refugee Act of 1980. Tells you all you need to know!
Biden, who co-sponsored legislation creating the refugee program in 1980, says reopening the doors to refugees is “how we will restore the soul of our nation.”
“Resettling refugees helps reunite families, enriches the fabric of America, and enhances our standing, influence and security in the world,” Biden said in June for World Refugee Day.
Yes, ol’ Joe did help create the Refugee Admissions Program and yet he managed to keep the number of third worlders that were placed in Delaware at near the bottom of the list for the entire nation.
Below is some of what I said in 2017 about Biden’s record on refugees for Delaware:
So from FY03 through today (in FY17) we admitted 886,324 refugees to America (not including asylum seekers) and Delaware got a whopping 139 of them!
In the years Joe Biden was Vice President, Delaware got only 50 refugees.
Unfortunately that post was thevictim of WordPress.com when it bowed to pressure from the speech police to remove my site and some of the illustrations were lost.. And, of course we can no longer access all of the data at the Refugee Processing Center (due to fraud by foreigners) to give you up-to-date numbers on Delaware’s abysmal resettlement history.
America Lasters!
***For New Readers these are the nine federal refugee contractors who worked to put Biden and Harris in the White House and are lobbying for millions of illegal aliens to be transformed into legal voting citizens as well as raising the refugee admissions ceiling from 15,000 this year to 125,000.
They are largely paid by you, the taxpayer, for their work of changing America by changing the people, and in so doing, are putting Americans last!
Hint! Their plans do not involve taking care of poor Americans first!
You can ‘enjoy’ listening to the International Rescue Committee’s lackey as she explains what Biden should do to increase the number of refugees to be admitted to the UShere.
How the Biden Administration Can Reset America’s Approach to Refugees, Asylum Seekers and International Migration
The United States has a long history of supporting refugees and asylum seekers. Until the Trump administration took office, the United States was the single largest country for refugee resettlement in the world. In most years prior to 2017, about half of all refugees who were resettled to a developed country came to the United States.
[….]
With Trump leaving office, the incoming administration has an opportunity to reset America’s approach to refugees, asylum seekers and international migration more broadly.
Biden promises 125,000 in his first year, much higher than in any Obama year.
Ash at the Clinton Global Initiative
I could care less what Nazanin Ash, vice president for global policy and advocacy says, but the article triggered my interest in checking out salaries (something I haven’t done for awhile) at the ‘non-profit’ refugee promoting group which received over $440 MILLION from you, the taxpayer, in a recent year.
Poor Ms. Ash, she doesn’t even come in the top ten salaries for this behemoth working to change your American towns by changing the people.
They expect to be back in business now that Biden and the Dems have stolen the election, but they sure didn’t take any pay cuts during the lean (ha!ha!) Trump years.
Parents! Tell your kids to grow up to be charity workers!
Imagine how many poor people could be helped with that $1 million annual salary that moneybags Miliband is raking in! Not to mention the millions that others working for the International Rescue Committee are making.
See my extensive archive on David Miliband. When the brother to ‘Red Ed’ arrived from the UK in 2013 he started at a salary just over $400,000.
As American workers and the previous refugees they placed throughout the countryare struggling to make a living during the Chinese virus ‘crisis’ it is sickening to see how greedy these charity workers are.
As I have said many times, if these non-profits were raising their money privately, I wouldn’t care what they pay their top executives, but when they take even one dollar from hard working Americans it becomes our business.
Has America run out of poor people?
For new readers here (below) are the nine federal contractors just licking their chops as they prepare to go back to work bringing more poverty to America.
This is what I said to Neil Munro at Breitbart, and you should ask the same every chance you get.
There’s no sense trying to argue with [progresives] except to turn it back and say; ‘What about our own poor people? Why aren’t they interested in taking care of our poor Americans? Our homeless? Why are refugees and immigrants somehow cooler and more desirable to take care of than our own poor people? Have we run out of poor Americans to take care of?’ No, clearly, we have not run out of poor Americans.
These are the charities, including ‘religious’ charities that put migrants ahead of Americans!
Neil Munro writing atBreitbartyesterday confirms what we know, the refugee industry does not want local citizens to have a say when their towns and cities are chosen by federal resettlement contractors and approved by the US State Department as new homes for impoverished third worlders.
Remember that when Obama left office in 2016 his State Department and the resettlement contractors (Volags) were busy identifying nearly 50 new sites in which to expand their efforts to change America by changing the people.
In fact they had produced a guide that could be used by local open borders activists (without public input) to identify and put in place the necessary amenities that could then be submitted in an application to the State Department for approval of the town or city.
If Biden/Harris are installed in the White House look for them to be dusting off a plan to secretively identify new sites.
Below is a bit of what Munro said yesterday, but please read the whole thing.
FromBreitbart (thanks to several readers who sent it my way):
Foreign Refugee Managers: Keep Americans in the Dark
Nearly all managers in taxpayer-funded, refugee-delivery organizations say the public should have no say about the delivery of unskilled refugees into Americans’ neighborhoods, job markets, and schools, says a survey by refugee groups.
The 61-page surveywas released December 8 by the Refugee Council USA [That is the lobbying arm for the refugee industry in Washington, DC–ed] and the Center for Migration Studies, as the refugee groups cheered Joe Biden for his campaign-trail promise to dramatically expand the flow of low-wage refugees into Americans’ workplaces.
The number Biden is promising is 125,000 in the first year. See my post yesterday.
Just 15 percent of managers in refugee agencies, and just 14 percent of refugee officials in state governments, said that “neighborhood associations” should be “given a voice in the Refugee Resettlement process,” according to a chart on page 27 of the survey.
Once warned, many neighborhood groups protest against the delivery of refugees by the groups, which are dubbed VOLAGs because the official government term is a “Voluntary Agency.”
Most VOLAG respondents also argued that the federal government should not give a voice to Americans’ local governments:
Fifty-eight percent of survey respondents believe that the federal government should consult with state and local officials about resettlement but should not be required to obtain their consent before refugees are resettled. Smaller percentages believed that state and local officials should neither be consulted nor required to consent (19 percent).
Bartlett is standing in front of a map of refugee resettlement sites across the country. It is a map you cannot find anymore. Likewise as we reported recently it is no longer possible to get real time refugee arrival numbers or to learn where they were dropped off upon arrival.
Former Director of refugee admissions at the State Department, Lawrence Bartlett, the author of the introductory letter (below) to the New Site Development Guide had been pushed aside in the early Trump years, but by 2018 he was backat Population, Refugees and Migration.
I assume he is still there, but even if he isn’t, you can be sure that his deep state pals are all in place and ready to push forward if Biden succeeds in stealing the Presidency.
So we soon could be back to where we were in 2016 BT (Before Trump), having to fight in our own communities through grassroots skirmishes against Washington and its fake non-profit resettlement contractors.
And don’t expect help from Congress where the Republican chickens who rule the roost are provided their chicken scratch by massive global corporations always on the hunt for cheap migrant labor.
Don’t think for a minute that you, citizens and taxpayers, are “stakeholders!” You do not have a say!
For new readers these are the nine fake non-profits that will be making the primary decisions about how your town or city will be changed. From page 6 of the New Site Guide:
The refugee industry is getting really desperate as they bring out their old ‘bigwigs’ and use the ghost of Ronald Reagan to stick it to ‘orange man’ who is trying to limit the number of diseased people entering the US.
As you most likely know Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden teamed up in 1979 to push through the Refugee Act of 1980which only went into action to change America in Reagan’s first term in office.
James N. Purcellsays he is one of the creators of the Carter Act and became an early head of the program under Reagan.
Reagan admitted hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Southeast Asian refugees escaping Communism during his 8 years in office.
Purcell has been out and about in recent months to fill the elder statesman role in the Open Borders Lefts’ war on Trump.
My question is this: Just because it is now 40 years old, does it mean that somehow the Refugee Act is sacrosanct and can never be changed, or dumped completely?
Reagan refused to allow fear of disease to halt refugee resettlement, and Trump shouldn’t either
We set up protocols and rules to ensure Southeast Asians fleeing communism didn’t spread tuberculosis.
[Before I give you a few snips from what he says, know that we are admitting refugees and have been for decades who have TB and some of those have active TB. I always thought that would be something that would make the general public sit up and take notice of flaws in the supposed ‘health screening’ of refugees, but so far it hasn’t. Obviously Trump has thankfully noticed. See my extensive file on refugee TB by clicking here.]
Now here is some of what Purcell said, but please read it all (emphasis is mine):
Rep. Sam Hall [Democrat!—ed] was relentless as he questioned me about the Indochina refugees we proposed to admit to the United States: Are these refugees free of tuberculosis? Is the American public in danger?I recalled these congressional oversight questions from 40 years ago with great trepidation when I learned recently about the Trump administration’s current attempts to bar refugees and migrants on health grounds.
[….]
It was September 1981 as I pondered questions from the late Democratic congressman from Texas; eight months into the new Reagan administration, I was representing the State Department at these “consultations” hearings as acting director of the Bureau for Refugee Programs. Along with me were acting representatives from the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare and Justice, and the Voice of America. The Refugee Act of 1980 required administration representatives to consult with the judiciary committees of both houses on future admissions. Rep. Ron Mazzoli of Kentucky was in the chair and all members were present, as well as an overflow audience.
[….]
…..my colleague Paul Wolfowitz (assistant secretary for East Asia and the Pacific) and I had agonized for weeks about the deteriorating refugee situation in Asia and the critical importance of these make-or-break hearings. Wolfowitz warned, “Vietnamese refugees continue to flee the new communist regime that took over after the fall of Saigon, and persecuted victims from Laos and Cambodia are also on the move. All are flocking to the non-communist states of Southeast Asia. Our experts warn that refugee flight shows no signs of ending.”
[….]
The State Department’s advance team had alerted us that TB was a major concern. When Hall raised his questions, I described the medical checks we conducted for refugees prior to departure from Asia. Each was carefully screened before departure by the Geneva-based Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, using guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Public Health Service. I described two types of TB, communicable and non-communicable, and emphasized that “no refugee with communicable TB was admitted to the United States; while a few with non-communicable TB had been admitted, they were not a threat and could best be treated here.” [Yep, we took on the role of treating thousands upon thousands of refugees with latent TB and that job went to local health departments in your communities—ed]
[….]
The committee was not satisfied with my testimony, and the notion of an admissions moratorium had arisen.My reaction was clear and unambiguous: a moratorium would lead to disaster and death in Southeast Asia and must be avoided. I realized my explanations had not gotten through when the national news that evening reported, “500,000 ticking time bombs in the U.S.”
An admission moratorium was contemplated by the Hill committee!
Readers, this is quite a revelation. Did the committee think they had the power under the Refuge Act to suggest such a thing? Today “consultations” happen behind closed doors with only the principals involved—the State Department rep and some committee chairmen.
Again, the consultation today is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC!
Later, when the U.S. accepted the protocol to the U.N. Convention Related to the Status of Refugees in 1968, the president accepted that, “deportation of a refugee is a particularly serious measure, and it would not be humanitarian to deport a refugee for reasons of health.” By this action, the United States recognized that it could not expel a refugee for a “contagious disease” when we could offer acceptable treatments. Congress codified the obligation in the Refugee Act of 1980.
It became clear that actions we proposed were consistent with evolving policy and practice. Nevertheless, several members remained unconvinced. When the committee voted several days later, the moratorium was defeated by one vote. This was a narrow and a key victory, as it confirmed the legal and policy precedent for the next 40 years.
That must have been the first and last strong stand Congress ever took on the Carter/Kennedy law that opened the door to impoverished (and sick) people to legally flood into America.
The refugee industry today wants no restrictions for health reasons. Our healthcare system (which you pay for) can just fix their health problems they say.
But, shockingly, the idea is with us again with the Trump administration’s proposed Security Bars and Processing Rule. According to Yael Schacher, historian with Refugees International, this rule would “expand the definition of national security to incorporate public health bars in an unprecedented, unnecessary, and arbitrary way that would enable refoulement, or the return of asylum seekers to persecution.”
As with hundreds of other rules and policy shifts designed to restrict and limit refugee and immigrant admissions to the United States, this rule fails to safeguard public health or uphold laws and treaties protecting people fleeing persecution. Getting a jump-start, the CDC has already put an order in place that closes the border to those without documents on health grounds, regardless of persecution. [“without documents?” means they are not refugees selected through the US Refugee Admissions Program.—ed]
But, especially in this time of a worldwide pandemic, sensible Americans can see that Trump has America first in mind, so let him know that you are grateful for that.
I remembered this post from nearly eleven years ago when I responded to a readers comment just now.
Of course, I’ve been saying that gnashing our teeth about how we got here (in chaos) is likely a waste of time at this point when we need to be devoting our full attention to getting Trump re-elected and saving our economy and our selves! Nevertheless, this might be a useful reminder of the Left’s goals in adding more and more poor black and brown people to American towns and cities.
If you are a regular reader, you know one of the themes we have been writing about is what I call “community destabilization,” we have a whole category for those posts, here. And, you know we write about the Cloward-Piven strategy as part of that discussion.
Cloward and Piven, while professors at Columbia University (Obama’s alma mater), penned a 1966 treatise in Nation magazine in which they outlined a strategy to bring about a revolution in America.
I wrote about it most recently, here. Simply stated the strategy involved flooding the welfare system with so many impoverished people that the system would collapse and that would pave the way for a new form of government—a government that would redistribute the wealth and provide a guaranteed income for everyone.
Below is another shocking segment from that article. We are often lectured about what is the moral thing to do about refugees, but let me ask all of you, what is moral about this Far Left strategy?
Remember immigrants and refugees are today’s poor. As unfashionable as the word is, frankly, I call this strategy to place as many people as possible on the welfare system and use them for promotion of a radical political ideology downright evil.* (Emphasis below mine)
To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform.
Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?
First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America’s poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests. Since radical movements in America have rarely been able to provide visible economic incentives, they have usually failed to secure mass participation of any kind. The conservative “business unionism” of organized labor is explained by this fact, for membership enlarged only as unionism paid off in material benefits. Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members. Although leaders have increasingly acted in political spheres, their influence has been directed chiefly to matters of governmental policy affecting the well-being of organized workers. The same point is made by the experience of rent strikes in Northern cities. Their organizers were often motivated by radical ideologies, but tenants have been attracted by the promise that housing improvements would quickly be made if they withheld their rent.
Second, for this strategy to succeed, one need not ask more of most of the poor than that they claim lawful benefits. Thus the plan has the extraordinary capability of yielding mass influence without mass participation, at least as the term “participation” is ordinarily understood. Mass influence in this case stems from the consumption of benefits and does not require that large groups of people be involved in regular organizational roles. [Of course not, the smart people, the elite radicals, would call all the shots!]
Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous.Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely. Other movements have failed precisely because they could not produce continuous and cumulative influence.
When you read the Nation article, note that Cloward and Piven were very conscious of the concept of the ‘presumption of good intentions.’ In other words, they knew that this political strategy would go undetected for a very long time because it would be hidden from their average do-gooder minions by the presumption that this was all about aiding the downtrodden.
I must say this ‘strategy’ is the only logical explanation for why we are still pouring refugees into the US right now when there is little or no work for them and they are being “warehoused” in decrepit apartment buildings, like those in Bowling Green, KY. Incidentally, even if refugees have chicken plant jobs they still receive various forms of public assistance because the meatpackers no longer pay a living wage.
I wonder did Cloward and Piven ever anticipate the involvement of big businesses as allies in the revolution? See this post from August in which I list strange bedfellows on the open borders issue.
* I have to laugh, after I posted this, I see that Ann Coulter also suggested Far Left Liberal strategies were “evil” when she said their motto is:
They want to make sure that no future President can do what President Trump did to them and that is set an extremely low ceiling for admission of third worlders into American towns and cities.
