Editors note: I posted this today at Potomac Tea Party Report and have slightly modified the introduction.
We know how detrimental these two laws (of course one is not yet a law) will be to America, so how come the ruling class Republicans don’t get it!
At Potomac Tea Party Report I’ve called Jarrett the “Rasputin”of the Obama Administration and have many posts, click here, on who she is and how she operates.
Valerie ‘Rasputin’ Jarrett: Obamacare and Immigration Reform will be OUR crowning achievements!
We haven’t heard much from her lately. There was some speculation that she was calling the shots that terrible night in Benghazi and so she has been hiding out ever since.
Here she is front and center making it very clear that ‘Comprehensive immigration reform’ is an Obama plan (so hey, McCain, Graham, Rubio, Ryan and Boehner why hand him this victory?).
Valerie Jarrett, one of President Barack Obama’s top deputies, said Tuesday that immigration reform would be as important to the country’s future as Obamacare.
“It will be a landmark piece of legislation,” she told a videotaped meeting of progressive allies in a building alongside the White House.
“Together with the Affordable Care Act — two major pieces of legislation — that when we look back 50 years from now, I think we will all just be extremely proud,” said Jarrett.
Jarrett’s close relationship to Obama was underlined by her repeated use of the first-person plural. “We are confident that with everybody making [immigration] a priority, it will in fact pass, and we will sign it into law,” she said.
Jarrett’s pairing of Obamacare and immigration echoes her critics, who say the immigration rewrite is an effort by Democrats to gain political supremacy by adding tens of millions of Democrat-leaning immigrants to election rolls after 2020.
“Politically, pairing them in her mind suggests that the administration sees both pieces of administration as transformative,” said Mark Krikorian, a noted critic of immigration and the director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
It is fundamental transformation alright!
Obamacare and increased immigration are “ways of fundamentally changing the United States so that it will not be like our country before Obama was elected, which has always been his goal,” he said.
So Paul Ryan and others, what the hell are you thinking!
The Daily Caller continued:
Jarrett’s pairing of the two bills also contradicts efforts by Republicans to focus the GOP’s base on the existing Obamacare law, and to divert the base away from the closed-door, bipartisan efforts to pass an immigration rewrite, Krikorian said.
“Without realizing it [Jarrett] is probably doing a favor to opponents of amnesty because [Rep.] Paul Ryan and other other Republicans are trying to distract attention from immigration by focusing attention on Obamacare,” said Krikorian.
“Valerie is bringing everyone back to the connection of the two,” Krikorian said.
Go to all of our coverage of S.744, here, to see how the new “comprehensive” immigration bill will increase the number of refugees/asylees in the US and how the contractors will be raking in the taxpayer cash.
The International Institute of New England (also a Limon family enterprise) says they never intended to slow the flow of refugees to overloaded Manchester beyond one year. Readers new to Refugee Resettlement should know that resettlement occurs on a fiscal year basis that begins on October 1 and runs to September 30th of the following year.
That means that there will be a big push from now to the end of September to get large numbers of refugees distributed to your towns and, then starting October 1, they will be working to fulfill the President’s determination (his wishlist!) for the number to be resettled in FY 2014. (Remember when so many of you testified to the State Department back in May, that was to get your input, which will be generally ignored, to the plan for 2014.)
From the Manchester Union Leader (hat tip: Joanne):
International Institute’s Benedict-Drew: No deal for FY2014!
Another 200 refugees will be resettled in Manchester in the coming months, a number that Mayor Ted Gatsas said breaks an agreement he had reached with a refugee resettlement organization.
However, the International Institute of New England said the agreement was only for a 12-month period that lapses next month. And the projection for the coming 12 months — 200 refugees for Manchester — is the same as the current period. An additional 50 will be placed in Nashua.
Carolyn Benedict-Drew, the director of the Boston-based International Institute of New England, said the refugees entering New Hampshire starting in October will most likely be Bhutanese and Iraqis.
They are really brazen about it—-turning refugees into VOTERS and turning red states blue!
Benedict-Drew said Bhutanese started settling in Manchester in 2008, and the first wave are in the pipeline to become citizens, about 300.
“These are going to be voting members of our community who will be building the economic base in New Hampshire,” Benedict-Drew said.
Report from USCRI (Lavinia and Peter Limon) says Manchester has lots of taxpayer supported health-care goodies for refugees including mental health and HIV/AIDs treatment:
A recent report by the International Institute of New Hampshire prepared for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants said that the state’s two largest cities have a favorable economic forecast, medical clinics and facilities to treat refugees with mental health and physical problems, including HIV/AIDs, and access to state funding for English classes.
Mayor Gatsas says he still wants a moratorium and is following what is going on in Springfield, MA.
The abstract report described Gatsas as neutral on the additional 200 refugees.
But Gatsas said that’s not the case, and he continues to favor a moratorium on refugee resettlement. He noted the Democratic mayor of Springfield, Mass., has asked for a moratorium.
Benedict-Drew: We call the shots, not the duly-elected Mayor
Benedict-Drew said the agreement only covered the current year.
“There was never an agreement for more than one year,” she said. “We honored it for one year.
So why are the contractors so unwilling to give Manchester a break.
First, they are driven by an agenda that includes diminishing the role of states (under the 10th Amendment) and bringing immigrant voters to traditionally conservative cities and states. But on a practical level, they are paid by the head to resettle refugees and the various contractors are competing against each other to get their share of the clients (aka refugees). If an agency can’t resettle a certain number of refugees, they will have to close offices and reduce staff.
Once they find a community into which they can pour the poor, they are reluctant to give it up. Additionally, they are paid by the head to bring family members to join the relatives already in the ‘seed’ community. Last year’s resettled Burmese, Somalis, etc. want to bring their extended family to join them and the contractors want to oblige them by placing them in the same town.
That’s why, if you don’t have refugees yet, but there is some word you might get some, raise questions in the local media right away. I call that the squawk factor, if the feds and the contractors get the idea that the squawking (really the questioning) is not going to stop they will move on to a more “welcoming” target city.
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 warbetween 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!
I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh’s discussion today of the story we reported yesterday—-the one about “asylum-seekers” flooding the US border one day last week. All said the same thing, that they wanted asylum because they had a credible fear of persecution by Mexican drug cartels.
Narco refugees!
This idea is not new. I checked our archives and see that in 2012 we wroteabout a Texas immigration lawyer working to expand the definition of asylum to include people some call “narco refugees.” Immigration lawyers like Carlos Spector, and he is not alone, are looking to fatten their wallets while changing America.
Imagine if lawyers like this guy prevailed, we would have people on the border expecting to be granted asylum from every crime-ridden country in the world!
***Update*** Looks like the O-man has already expanded the definition, here.
***Update August 13th***Commenter to this post, pungentpeppers, alerts us to more on the story—we give them hotel rooms and all are not Mexicans!
Here (below) is some of what Rush had to say. He doesn’t get all the nuances of the asylum process, but that doesn’t matter. The words “asylum” and “refugee” were heard by millions of listeners who may in the future pay a little more attention to what I believe has been an immigration law (Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980 thanks to Carter, Kennedy, Biden) misused and abused by too many, for too long.
If Rush only knew that the Obama–Gang of Eight amnesty bill will make receiving asylum easier and put more cash in the pockets of the refugee contractorswhose job it is to hook the new refugees and asylees up with social services he would probably have a heart attack. (See Rand Paul: “They bring’em in and sign’em up for welfare!). And, don’t tell him those same contractors, largely funded with tax dollars, are also busy lobbying for passage of S.744!
Limbaugh:
“Just this past Monday, Border Patrol agents say about 200 people came through the Otay Crossing claiming a quote: ‘credible fear’ of the drug cartels. So many were doing this that they had to close down the processing center and move the overflow by vans to another station. ‘They are being told if they come across the border, when they come up to the border and they say certain words, they will be allowed into the country,’ said a person who did not want to be identified on camera. ‘We are being overwhelmed.’ Pete Nunez, former U.S. Attorney and immigration expert says, ‘This will swamp the system.’ ‘To make our system even more ridiculous than it has been in the past,” he adds. ‘There are no detention facilities for families, so the family would have to be split up. We don’t want to split families up, so we end up releasing people,'” out into the wild, essentially.
So what this essentially is, folks, is refugee status. And refugee status is about the best status you can have, living in America. Being a refugee is right up there with being a citizen, because benefits for refugees include food stamps, housing vouchers, English language training, job training, transportation passes, Medicaid, supplemental security income assistance, SSI, as well as other public and private benefits. I mean, the Tsarnaev family were refugees. They landed in America either at Logan or JFK, and they claimed asylum. And that’s all you have to do.
Now, theoretically you’re kept track of, but if you come in claiming oppression, political asylum or, in this case, a credible fear of the drug cartels, then you’re admitted. And somebody has come up with this idea. Now, it’s not known who, obviously, but somebody’s come up with this. What are the odds that whoever has come up with this is either a Democrat or a Democrat activist?
And then he said this—-the Syrians are coming!
Now, look, we’re already taking in thousands upon thousands of Mexicans and Hispanics, and there’s a companion story here about Syrian refugees are now pouring into the United States. And there hadn’t been anything signed. There’s no new immigration bill. All this happened, the Republicans didn’t sign on to some 1,000 page bill. There are plenty of laws on the books to overwhelm the country with new immigrants without any amnesty bill taking place. So while we’re all debating that, this new influx just continues.
That is right!
Read it all! Limbaugh links this story to one about taxpaying Americans fleeing the country.
Here they come—the first 2,000 Syrian refugees (some of the most difficult refugees in the world!) will be processed into the US in the coming months.
Yippee! We are coming to America! Thank you President Obama!
We will be waiting to see if the US Catholic Bishops, Church World Service and the Lutherans demand that only the beleaguered Christians be allowed to enter. (But, we won’t be holding our breath!)
With conditions continuing to deteriorate in Syria, the Obama administration is making a major policy shift by agreeing for the first time to allow thousands of new Syrian refugees into the United States,The Cable has learned.
The numbers are relatively small: just 2,000 refugees, compared to an estimated two million peoplewho have fled Syria during the civil war. But it’s a significant increase from the 90 or so Syrian refugees who have been permanently admitted to the U.S. in the last two years. And it’s not entirely uncontroversial. The refugees, mostly women and children, will be screened for terrorist ties — a process that could take a year or more to complete.
Unlike previous efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to give temporary protected status to Syrians already in the United States, the State Department effort will bring in Syrians from overseas for permanent resettlement in America.
“Referrals will come within the next four months. We will need to interview people and perform security and medical checks,” Kelly Clements, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration, tells The Cable.
[…..]
By Clements’ own admission, given application processing times, “We’re not likely to see Syrian refugees into those numbers before well into 2014.”
Ah, the truth!
Despite their vulnerable condition, even the youngest of children will be thoroughly vetted to ensure they do not pose a national security threat. It’s not that they’re worried about infants enlisting in al Qaeda. The worry is that terrorist relatives can more easily enter the United States, once they have relatives in America. “Refugees are subject to an intensive security screening process involving federal intelligence, law enforcement, defense, and homeland security agencies,” a State Department official said. “The U.S. government makes every possible effort to uphold and enhance the security screening aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Refugees are among the most carefully screened of individuals traveling to the United States.” [One day I’ll make a list of all the refugee terrorists and criminals that got through the screening!—ed]
Wow! I didn’t know that Germany sends them back!
Other major resettlement countries, such as Germany, have pledged to bring in up to 13,000 refugees since the fighting began. However, unlike in the U.S., refugees to Germany are required to return after the fighting subsides.“We’re very proud of the fact that the U.S. judges applicants on need and seek out the most needy cases,” Erol Kekic, director of immigration at the Church World Service, tells The Cable.
If you are concerned about the Obama Syrian resettlement plan be sure to let your Senators and Member of Congress know of your concerns!
It’s yet to be seen if Congress will push back against the Obama administration’s acceptance of the Syrian refugees. (Ordinarily, the U.S. only admits refugees after a conflict has gone on for five years or longer.) Though the State Department’s refugee admission program is authorized by a presidential determination, it does involve consultation with Congress. [Consultation is a joke! Congress let’s them do whatever they want!—-ed]
.jpg)
