
This is one of the most useful documents researchers and resisters can use to fully understand what the Obama Administration has planned for FY2016 for resettling refugees to your towns and cities.
I haven’t looked at it closely yet, but if you have time on your hands over the weekend, you might want to start digging in.
The document is required to be sent to Congress before the start of the fiscal year, but each year the State Department just squeaks it in at the deadline thus giving the House and Senate Judiciary committees virtually no time to examine it before the fiscal year begins. (Ha! Assuming they have ever wanted to examine it!)
There has been no meaningful consultation for 20 years or more! Calling the House Judiciary Committee—-we are still waiting!
This one is here and it is dated October 1, 2015!
Category: Refugee statistics
Will your town/city get Syrian refugees? Have you gotten them already?
Yesterday, someone sent me a link to a news story that reported that some small town in Michigan was going to ‘welcome’ 4,500 Syrians in the coming year. Sounded preposterous to me, but it did spur me on to do something I’ve wanted to do for the last week and that is find out exactly what towns and cities were already getting Syrian refugees.

Knowing that once they got the initial “seeds” planted (seed is the word being used by Welcoming America), I know that they often then continue to pour them in. So I went back to the State Department’s data base (the Refugee Processing Center) to see where the mostly Muslim Syrians have been distributed so far.
However, if your city is not on the list below it does not mean that you are off the hook.
Go to the US State Department’s list of subcontractors working in 190 towns and cities, here, to see if you have a US State Department contractor set up in your town.
I would also urge all of you to go to the contact information for an office near you (in that list ) and ask for the Fiscal Year 2016 Abstract.
Those abstracts will tell you how many refugees the agency plans to resettle, from where they will come, and what your town is offering them in the way of social services and other amenities.
The FY2016 Abstracts are now in the hands of the US State Department which has already made its decisions (or how else would Sec. of State Kerry be able to say that we can handle 85,000 refugees this coming year) and the contractor should not be withholding them on some flimsy grounds that they are somehow still in the decision-making process. Do not be surprised, however, if they refuse to give you the abstract because secrecy is a watchword of this program and has been for decades!
I can’t emphasize enough that if they can’t find enough ‘welcoming’ locations, they will be out scouting for more unsuspecting towns.
‘Pockets of Resistance’ are forming and if you would like to be linked up with fellow concerned citizens, sign up here at the Center for Security Policy and someone will be in touch with you.
1,709 Syrian (mostly Muslim) refugees have been resettled in the US between 1/1/2012 and yesterday.
95% are Muslims
When I looked up the cities where they were distributed, I rechecked the numbers of Muslims vs. Christians we were resettling and the percentage is still about the same—95% since 2012 are (Sunni) Muslims and 97% in calendar year 2015 are Muslims. And, that is because we allow the United Nations to choose our refugees!
Here then are the towns/cities where those 1,709 Syrians have been resettled (some may only have received one Syrian so far, but that one should be considered a seed). Someone got these few: 43 Christians, 1 Catholic and 1 Yazidi resettled so far. Again, we are not saving the persecuted Christians in any significant way!
Top Syrian Muslim receiving states are in red.
Arizona (Glendale, Phoenix, Tucson)
Arkansas (Springdale)
California (Burbank, Chatsworth, El Cajon, Fair Oaks, Los Angeles, Modesto, Moorpark, Oakland, Pasadena, Plumas Lake, Sacramento, Salinas, San Diego, Santa Ana, Turlock, Van Nuys, Walnut Creek, West Covina)
Colorado (Colorado Springs, Denver)
Connecticut (Bristol, Hartford, New Haven, West Haven)
Florida (Clearwater, Jacksonville, Kissimmee, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Zephyrhills)
Georgia (Atlanta, Stone Mountain)
Idaho (Boise)
Illinois (Alsip, Aurora, Chicago, Des Plaines, Moline, Prospect Heights, Rock Island, Rockford, Wheaton)
Indiana (Indianapolis)
Kansas (Overland Park, Wichita)
Kentucky (Lexington, Louisville)
Louisiana (Baton Rouge, Kenner)
Maine (Portland)
Maryland (Baltimore, Riverdale, Severna Park, Silver Spring)
Massachusetts (Beverly, Lowell, South Boston, Springfield, Tewksbury, West Springfield, Worcester)
Michigan (Ann Arbor, Clinton Twp., Dearborn, Eastpointe, Farmington Hills, Grand Rapids, Troy, West Bloomfield Twp.)
Minnesota (Richfield, Rochester)
Missouri (Fenton, St. Louis)
Nevada (Las Vegas)
New Hampshire (Concord)
New Jersey (Camden, Clifton, Elizabeth, Jersey City)
New Mexico (Albuquerque)
New York (Buffalo, New York City, Rochester, Syracuse)
North Carolina (Durham, Greensboro, High Point, New Bern, Raleigh)
Ohio (Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, Westerville)
Oklahoma (Jenks)
Oregon (Portland)
Pennsylvania (Allentown, Erie, Harrisburg, Kingston, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre)
Tennessee (Memphis, Nashville)
Texas (Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston)
Utah (Salt Lake City)
Virginia (Burke, Centreville, Charlottesville, Falls Church, Newport News, Roanoke)
Washington (Richland, Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver)
West Virginia (Charleston)
Wisconsin (Oshkosh)
And again, please cross check with this list where the refugee contractors are working! They can actually place refugees within a hundred miles of their offices!
CIS: Welfare Use High for Both Legal and Illegal Immigrants
49% for Legal Households, 62% for Illegals
Here is the complete Center for Immigration Studies press release:
WASHINGTON, DC (September 10, 2015) — Low levels of education — not legal status — are the main reason immigrant welfare use is high, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies. The report estimates welfare use separately for legal and illegal immigrant households based on Census Bureau data, and is a companion to the Center’s study released last week examining all immigrant households. The new analysis shows that legal immigrant households make extensive use of most welfare programs, while illegal immigrant households primarily benefit from food programs and Medicaid through U.S.-born children.
“Welfare use by illegal immigrant households is certainly a concern, but the bigger issue is welfare use by legal immigrants,” said Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research and author of the report. “Three-fourths of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants. Legal immigration is supposed to benefit the country, yet so many legal immigrants are not able to support themselves or their children. This raises important questions about the selection criteria used for legal immigration.”
View the entire report at: http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households
Among the findings:
~An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.
~Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.
~Legal immigrant households account for three-quarters of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.
~Of legal immigrant households with children, 72 percent access one or more welfare programs, compared to 52 percent of native households.
~Of households headed by immigrants in the country illegally, we estimate that 62 percent used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of native households.
~Households headed by immigrants illegally in the country have higher use rates than native households overall and for food programs (57 percent vs. 22 percent) and Medicaid (51 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of cash programs by illegal immigrants is lower than use by natives (5 percent vs. 10 percent), as is use of housing programs (4 percent vs. 6 percent).
~Of illegal immigrant households with children, 87 percent access one or more welfare programs, compared to 52 percent of native households.
~There is a worker present in 85 percent of legal immigrant-headed households and 95 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households. But while most immigrant households have a worker, many are less-educated, earn low wages, and are thus eligible for welfare.
~Education level plays a larger role in explaining welfare use than legal status. The most extensive use of welfare is by less-educated immigrants who are in the country legally. Of households headed by legal immigrants without a high school diploma, 75 percent use one or more welfare programs, as do 64 percent of households headed by legal immigrants with only a high school education.
~The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.
~Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time. Some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
# # #
Be sure to see CIS’s previous announcement about how immigrants of all kinds use welfare at a higher rate than native born Americans.
Refugees!
For readers who are researching the Refugee Resettlement Program, go here for annual reports to Congress which contain information about welfare use by refugees.
In the most recent year (2013) available, note that on page 101, refugees are using public assistance at a much higher rate than other LEGAL immigrants shown in the table above. Remember it is the contractor’s job to get their ‘clients’ (refugees) signed up for “services.” Refugees thus benefit to a greater degree than other legal immigrants partly because you pay a supposed non-profit to guide them through the process of signing them up for their welfare benefits.
21% of refugees are using SSI
56% are using Medicaid
74% are getting food stamps (SNAP)
23% are in public housing or subsidized housing
This post is filed in our categories ‘where to find information‘ and ‘refugee statistics.’
Oops! Forgot to mention that the whole premise of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden) was that refugees were to be self-sufficient very quickly, they were not meant to be a burden on the taxpayer—so much for that promise!
UNHCR data confirms it: 75% of the so-called refugees arriving in Europe are MEN
Invasion of Europe news….
***Update*** November 17: this was a screenshot of the UNHCR percentages of men as of this date. One of our lurkers has suggested we lied. The percentage has fluctuated over time.
We mentioned recently that it appears from some photos that the invaders of Europe are mostly fighting age young men.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees does not tell us their ages, but does tell us that 75% are men. (Germans hide your daughters!)
Only 51% are Syrians, the rest are from all over the Middle East and Africa.
So, did the men abandon their women and children back home (in an unsafe country)? What sort of men are these?
See the numbers from the horse’s mouth, here. Hat tip: Mark
For our archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ going back several years, click here.
97% of Syrian refugees admitted to US in 2015 are Muslims
We have been reporting from time to time the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the US. You know that the resettlement contractors and the Senate Jihad Caucus are looking for the US to resettle 65,000 before Obama leaves office.

Using US State Department figures going back to January 1, 2012 we see that 1,487 Syrians have been admitted as of September 1 (a few days ago) and the vast majority (95%) are Muslims—Sunni Muslims. However, if one only looks at the calendar year 2015, the percentage of Muslims jumps to 97%! That is because the UN is telling us which refugees to take!
By the way there are 40-some Christians in that number and 1 Yazidi (and a few other religions, or no religion).
The 1,487 have been distributed to 36 states.
The top ten states receiving mostly Sunni Muslim Syrians since 1/1/2012 are as follows (as of today):
Texas (173)
California (162)
Michigan (146)
Illinois (120)
Arizona (107)
Florida (92)
Pennsylvania (76)
New Jersey (63)
Massachusetts (58)
Kentucky (55)
I’ll bet that one criteria used to determine where they have been sent is the number of mosques in the state.
Don’t forget that back in February the FBI testified before the House Homeland Security Committee that they could not adequately screen the Syrians for security.
For those readers just joining us today—PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!
Watch for it! This month Obama will be announcing how many Syrians he wants admitted to the US in 2016! I’ll be watching what those Senators running for the Republican nomination for President will say as their states will be getting the bulk of the Syrians. Ted Cruz (TX), Rand Paul (KY), Chris Christie (NJ) and Marco Rubio (FL)—where are you?

