Category: Testimony for 5/15/2013 State Dept. meeting

State Department Refugee testimony submitted from Montana

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Thanks so much to all of our readers who have responded and sent testimony to the US State Department for their consideration as they prepare for the FY2014 Presidential Determination that will be sent to Congress in September.  The State Department is seeking your input on the size and scope of the program for the new fiscal year—-how many and which refugees will be admitted.

If you haven’t submitted testimony and wish to, here (again) are the instructions.  You have until the Close of Business Wednesday, May 8th, but don’t cut it too close!  And, please note you are requested to fax or e-mail your comments.  If you only send a paragraph or two that will help those in a decision-making position better understand the public’s sentiment on the issue.  Up until last year, the State Department heard primarily from refugee contractors with a vested financial interest in a larger refugee population.

And, don’t forget, again go to these instructions and see the list of those you should copy on your testimony (you can mail those snail-mail after tomorrow if you wish).

Below is another testimony, this time shared by our reader Paul Nachman of Montana.  (Others we have received and published so far are archived here).  Emphasis below is RRW’s.

Federal Register Notice

To Delicia Spruell:

I’m writing, as prescribed in the link above, to comment on the FY2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

What I say here is heavily informed by an encounter I had in early 2003. At a conference on immigration and assimilation hosted by the Claremont Institute and held at Chapman College in Orange, CA, I met Professor Jan Ting, then and now a law professor at Temple University and formerly the Assistant Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under President George H. W.. Bush. Learning of his pedigree, I asked Professor Ting, “Is it true what I’ve heard, that 90% of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?”  He instantly replied, “95%.”

In other words, most “refugees” and “asylees” weren’t endangered in their home countries. They simply want to live in the U.S., because it’s a better deal for them economically.

This basic fact—that asylees and refugees frequently take cynical advantage of the American public’s goodwill—has finally received widespread and much needed public exposure via the bombing of the Boston Marathon.  The two young men responsible were present in the U.S. only because their parents had received LPR status as asylees.  Notably, and consistent with what Professor Ting had said, the parents have, in the meantime, returned to whence they came, strongly implying that their request for asylum had been fraudulent.

This is not an isolated case nor a new phenomenon: For example, in 1995, former State Department (U.S.I.A.) employee Don Barnett wrote in The Social Contract quarterly, “At any given time about 20,000 of the all-expenses-paid refugee visas have been awarded to former Soviets who have decided they don’t want to leave just now. The visas remain in effect indefinitely allowing the holder to leave at his or her convenience.”  People who choose to leave their domiciles ‘at their convenience’ are clearly not being persecuted and are at no hazard to life or limb!

Following are two specific comments spurred by reading and comparing several documents found online: the DoS/HHS(ORR)/DHS Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2013 [henceforth, “the three-agencies report”], the DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2012 (Tables 6 and 7), and the DoS Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration’s [PRM] Summary of Refugee Admissions as of 30 April, 2013.  (I assume that the proposed-admissions document for FY2014 will be similar in scope and content to that FY2013 document.)

— Refugee numbers are grossly inconsistent among these documents.  Take FY2011 as an example.  According to both the three-agencies report (Table II) and the PRM summary, the total count was 56,224.  But the DHS yearbook gives the refugee total as 113,045 (Table 6) and 105,528 (Table 7).  Yet the DHS has also signed onto the three-agencies report!  Nor is this gross discrepancy unique to FY2011.

Therefore, Question #1: Why are the numbers of humanitarian admissions tabulated by the different departments so disparate?

— The footnote on page “i” of the three-agencies report says “Detailed discussion of the anticipated social and economic impact, including secondary migration, of the admission of refugees to the United States is being provided in the Report to the Congress of the Refugee Resettlement Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Department of Health and Human Services.”  [Emphasis added.]  But my careful online search failed to turn up such a document.

A footnote on page 58 of that report says “[The ‘refugee resettlement’] category … does not include costs associated with the … Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, or Supplemental Security Income programs,” thus reinforcing the point that major costs of refugee resettlement—indeed, probably the dominant costs—aren’t being revealed to the public.

Getting the refugee numbers correct (see my Question #1) has an obvious bearing on the costs burden.  I see from that same footnote on page 58 that the Office of Refugee Resettlement [ORR] also serves  “asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants.”  Thus even if those DHS refugee numbers are grossly high, the PRM and the three-agencies-report numbers may actually be lowball, since the combined numbers of refugees and asylees are in the same numerical territory as DHS’s refugee-only numbers.

Putting these points together leads to Question #2: Why is the taxpaying American public systematically denied  information revealing the true cost to us of the humanitarian-admissions programs?

Sincerely,

Paul Nachman
Montana

Copies by U.S. mail to:

– Senator Max Baucus

– Senator Jon Tester

– Representative Steve Daines

– US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

– US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Readers:  Everything relating to this year’s hearing on May 15th (testimony due May 8th) is located in this special category here at RRW.

It is time to speak up!  Send even a couple of paragraphs by Wednesday and be heard!  It doesn’t need to be long or detailed, just polite!

Send your testimony to me if you would like to see it in print!  Tomorrow…North Carolina speaks up!

More testimony for the US State Department: Tennessee this time

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Readers, you have less than 4 days (by close of business on May 8th) to get testimony to the State Department on the “size and scope” of the Refugee Resettlement program for fiscal year 2014.  Instructions are here!  Don’t forget!  Be sure you copy anything you send to the State Department to your elected Member of Congress and US Senators!  (if you don’t do this, your testimony will go down a black hole at the State Department).

So far we have published testimony in advance from Texas (here) and from New Hampshire (here).  Please send me your testimony for possible publication.

Below is our recent submission from Tennessee.  Please don’t be deterred by the incredible detail in this testimony.  If you can only send a couple of paragraphs, that will be enormously helpful.

By the way, I will basically be saying what I said last year, here.  LOL!, so now we need testimony from 46 more states!

Now from Tennessee:

Anne Richard
Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration
US State Department
Washington, DC

Re. Federal Register Public Notice 8241

I have been researching the federal refugee resettlement program for several years and have also been a volunteer with a resettlement agency.  I have been shocked to watch this program be divorced from its humanitarian and charitable roots and instead, be transformed into an industry for government contractors and government funded refugee entrepreneurs.

The refugee resettlement industry makes a mockery of “give me your tired, your hungry, your poor” when the refugee and immigrant rights groups that support the resettlement industry, oppose legitimate dialogue about the cost of programs.  In Tennessee a lawyer lobbyist from a highbrow law firm represents groups like the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC), a refugee group that boasts a 990 that tops the $1 million mark.

TN Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition and ORR

Formed in 2001, TIRRC was a result of a U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement grant awarded to the Nashville Chamber of Commerce for the “Building the New American Community” pilot program.  The program was designed to “foster the successful integration of refugees and immigrants at a community level.”  This goal was believed to be best achieved through “economic self-sufficiency and meaningful civic participation”, including the development of refugee and immigrant leadership.   Former ORR Director Lavinia Limon was recognized for working collaboratively with Nashville locals on this project.  This project was right up her alley because she advocated strongly for the need to support newcomer integration at the local level and to build the capacity of refugee organizations.

TIRRC has a highbrow firm lobbyist given that in 2011 (last 990 available), they reported $1,169,811 in total revenue.  Lobbying expenditures since 2008 total $556,506 with $160,881 spent in 2011.  Total gifts, grants and contributions since 2007 reported total $3,901,899.

These are now the very refugee organizations that have been positioned by the administration to shout down any objections or even legitimate fiscal inquiries into program costs.  These are the same organizations that have joined with more radical groups such as the Rights Working Group and Black Unity whose website insists that members follow these rules:

NO SNITCHING– The Police, Capitalism, the State etc. are an enemy to the people and to work with them is criminal, Ancestral Treason! Loose lips sink ships, snitching is unforgivable.
WARRIOR CODE – Security first! Protect Women, Children, & Elders. Train; work out get your fighting skills up to par. Police your own community. We don’t need pigs overseeing us.
NO FALSE FLAGGIN’ – Red, white, and blue ain’t never did sh*t for you. Don’t be a star-spangled slave. Get on the right team; rally round the flag on some Red, Black, and Green.
BUILD SURVIVAL PROGRAMS – The people come first. You are your Brother/Sisters keeper. Capitalism teaches individualism, which is anti-African. We have to create programs that are for the best interest of the people (especially Food, Clothing and Shelter).

By TIRRC’s own description, their focus today is to “empower immigrants and refugees throughout Tennessee to develop a unified voice…”.  Sort of like a labor union model for immigrants and refugees except propped up with federal funds.  A review of TIRRC’s policy positions and description of its accomplishments presumes that Tennesseans and Tennessee policymakers are anti-immigrants/refugees.  However, there is nothing in TIRRC’s advocacy that acknowledges that what concerns Tennesseans and policymakers is the militant insistence that cultural and religious demands made by “new Americans” must be met, regardless of anything else– including cost or the encroachment on other’s legitimate and protected rights.

No amount of feature stories about the accomplishments of resettled refugees will make state and local taxpayers feel better about the militancy of groups like TIRRC and EEOC actions brought to demand more and more workplace accommodations.  Or the fact that the Kurdish Pride Gang (KPG) some of whose members were recently prosecuted, is a direct product of Catholic Charities’ humanitarian efforts.

One local Kurdish activist who was formerly a state lobbyist for TIRRC says there are gangs more dangerous than the KPG in Nashville and that the local government should spend more of its resources mentoring the gang members “to get them on the right path” as opposed to punishing them for gang activities.

Federal contractors and refugee advocates don’t want state costs disclosed

As an example of what is going on around the country, groups like TIRRC in Tennessee, take great pride in asserting their participation in defeating state legislation which sought to determine the cost to the state for the federal refugee resettlement program.  At the same time, TIRRC promoted legislation to increase state appropriations for English Language Learner (ELL) instruction.  TIRRC’s lobbyist works alongside the lobbyist for Catholic Charities.

TIRRC works hand in glove with Tennessee’s resettlement agencies including its largest – Catholic Charities.  They sit on each other’s boards and work in concert to deflect any public inquiries into their program operations and costs to the state, as was recently the case in Tennessee.  It has been documented that the federal contractor who testified before a state legislative committee went so far as to misrepresent facts in her testimony.

Local citizens who pay the tab for increased school costs associated with ELL services, get called names such as “extremist”, “xenophobe”, “bigoted”, and “racist”, when they object to increases in taxes to fund the increase in state and local costs.   Legislators who dare to pursue legitimate inquiries for cost data are met with opposition, public accusations of being inhumane, and name calling.

Public requests for resettlement proposals are refused and are instead directed to filing of Freedom of Information Act forms because the resettlement agencies and Catholic Charities’ TN Office for Refugees do not consider themselves accountable to state taxpayers or even donors for that matter.  This is because they are federal contractors.

Claims of fleeing from persecution with little interest in economic advancement lose their credibility with the disclosure of the fact that Bhutanese refugees were victims of non-violent displacement.

Equally disingenuous to the plight of Somalis is the recent reciprocal visits by Rep. Ellison and the current President of Somalia who has declared his country safe for repatriation, an alleged stated goal of the U.S. resettlement program.

Wilson-Fish federal contractors and the pro forma consultation

State Department officials consistently ignore the obtuse and disenfranchising of the local native population once a Wilson-Fish project is put in place, as is the case in Tennessee.  When the state of Tennessee elected to reduce its cost and size of state government by electing to get out of the refugee resettlement program, the Office of Refugee Resettlement approved Catholic Charities to become the state designee.  Thereafter, ORR approved Catholic Charities to become a Wilson-Fish project.

With that, Catholic Charities opened a new department now named the Tennessee Office for Refugees (TOR) misleading the public into thinking that this is a state authorized agency.  One of the key components of refugee resettlement – consultation, is now even more of an in-house exercise.  Recall that the 2012 GAO report highlighted, consistent with the policy position of the National Governor’s Association, that meaningful consultation with state and local stakeholders is virtually non-existent.  The GAO report likewise pointed out that assessment of “capacity” lacks uniform criteria and at best, is driven mostly by the per capita resettlement incentive.

In Tennessee, the state refugee coordinator (who previously ran the resettlement program for Catholic Charities), is employed and paid by the Wilson-Fish grant, unaccountable to the state taxpayer.  Catholic Charities and the other VOLAG affiliate offices operating in Tennessee along with the Wilson-Fish grant director, have made it clear that they are not accountable to the state and do not have to provide information to the state.

The consultative process in a Wilson-Fish state is an in-house self-propagating process: the local affiliate office consults with the state refugee coordinator and the state refugee health coordinator (who also reports directly to the state refugee coordinator, both of whom are employed by Catholic Charities which also happens to be two of the local affiliate resettlement agencies) about “capacity” and how many refugees they think they can resettle.  After this “objective” consultation, the local affiliate submits its “reception & placement” proposal to their national parent organization.

All this means is that in states operated under a Wilson-Fish project, “consultation” is a pro forma at best.  How ironic that once Catholic Charities took over refugee resettlement in Tennessee, the numbers went up.

The refugee resettlement program is a double whammy for the state taxpayer.  Federal dollars pay for the federal contractors to bring refugees to states (no consent required by those responsible for the state budget), to then enroll them into public assistance programs and public schools, which are in part paid for by state taxpayers.  Then refugee service providers like CRIT, NICE and Catholic Charities, subsidized with government funds, aggressively scour and flood the job market all the while working to increase annually the number of refugees they resettle in order to “grow” their agencies.

The Center for Refugees and Immigrants of TN (CRIT) – one example of “refugee entrepreneurs”

The Center for Refugees and Immigrants of Tennessee (CRIT) is referred to as a “community self-help” created by a refugee to secure government grants to provide refugee resettlement support services.  These entrepreneurial endeavors are highly praised by ORR and the TOR run by Catholic Charities. No amount of feel good stories can gloss over the fact that CRIT, the formerly named Somali Community Center continued to receive federal funds by subgrant from the Catholic Charities Wilson-Fish project even though the Somali Center’s then director pled guilty to grant fraud.

The story of the grant fraud was publicized in the local media and brought to the attention of U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper’s local Nashville office.  His office reportedly was going to look into the matter but apparently this never happened.

One can presume that Catholic Charities was merely following the example of ORR and the State Department that has continued the family reunification program despite acknowledged fraud in the program.

In short, the self-help (aka “mutual assistance associations”) spin off initially with funding from TOR, eventually secure other federal grant funding which create jobs for other refugees and then work to grow their agency by providing services to increasing numbers of refugees.  Other groups like NICE (Nashville International Center for Empowerment) started out the same way but is now resettling refugees and like other federal contractors, is incentivized to resettle more and more refugees each year.  In fact, a review of agency funding (attached here), available from their own website posted annual reports show that the majority of funding comes from government grants even though Cooperative Agreements make it clear that the government money is only supposed to supplement the “significant” funding the private contractors are supposed to raise from other sources.

CRIT and NICE both promote themselves to employers as being able to provide employees with job placement services without any placement fee – a FREE service to employers.  CRIT’s website (which has now been moved and scrubbed), posted the following with regard to employment services:

You [the employer] could qualify for tax incentives by hiring refugees: Since many refugees receive public assistance, your company could qualify for tax credits and training incentives when you hire them.
Our job placement services are FREE: Rather than spend money placing job advertisements, contact the Center for Refugees and Immigrants of Tennessee. Let us help you find qualified workers FREE OF CHARGE.
Refugees are flexible about what shift they work and what days they work: Many refugees will work second or third shift or weekends and holidays. Many of our refugee workers can work on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Years Eve, New Years Day, Easter, Thanksgiving, and Independence Day.

Of course CRIT never mentions that the trade-off may be employees that demand prayer time, food and dress accommodations without which the company is most likely to be sued.  Both CRIT and the resettlement agency NICE are funded mostly through government grants.

Examples:
Sometime in 2002 Whirlpool in La Vergne, Tennessee, was sued by temporary Somali Muslim workers over the issue of prayer breaks.  After two years of litigation, a jury ruled in favor of Whirlpool.

In 2005 30 resettlement-placed workers walked off the job at Dell for being denied a prayer break.  The then director of CRIT who later pled guilty to grant fraud, was the spokesman for the workers.

In 2008 at the urging of the three Somali refugee workers on the union bargaining committee, Tysons agreed to substitute Id al-Fitr as a paid holiday for Labor Day, which was an unpaid holiday.  Tysons management was reported to have welcomed the change since the high number of Muslim workers at the Shelbyville plant taking off for the Muslim holiday caused significant work slowdowns.   Due to objections from Latino workers, Tysons retracted the holiday change replacing it with a paid personal holiday for any worker to use.

More recently in Minnesota, Somali workers walked off the job to protest the food company’s burqa ban.  Any legitimate concerns about worker safety around the machinery following a documented accident were dismissed as irrelevant by the offended workers.

Despite these support networks, resettled refugees and their support agencies cite their frustration that lack of English language competency has kept many in low paying jobs.  Given the plight of many Americans likewise struggling in the sluggish job market, complaints of this nature are untimely as are demands for more government spending on studying the need for expanded mental health services for resettled populations.

A recent article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press disclosed the resettlement services that Bridges apparently did not provide.  It also detailed that what little service Bridges did provide, was substandard at best.  As reported, the individuals that Bridges placed in the public housing site in Chattanooga still, five years later don’t have an ability to functionally get their basic needs met, calls into question how these agencies are monitored – or not, and whether they are simply overreaching capacity.  Rather than whining to Congress about their need for more money to be able to provide needed services, why not consider scaling back operations to do a more adequate job with the funding they have.

TOR either knew about this situation because they were monitoring or they didn’t because they weren’t monitoring.  Either way, the issues which the refugees still struggle with long after Bridges was paid and is gone, are now left to neighbors and others in the community to contend with.

Wrapping themselves in a banner of moral righteousness in the refugee cause of fleeing persecution, is the way VOLAGs and their advocates avoid any objective discourse of how these controversies affect businesses and communities and who pays the bill for the VOLAGs’ self-professed moral high ground.

Conclusion

Several years ago when budget cuts to the resettlement program were looming, one letter sent by a Catholic Charities resettlement worker to Tennessee senators was more concerned about retaining his job as opposed to the resettlement program.  This was the same year that resettlement agencies were upset about the enhanced security screenings because of the slow down in their cash flow.  As a result, Congress guaranteed a level of funding helping to shore up the evolving resettlement industry.

Should public money be used to institutionalize private charities?

The bureaucracy of refugee resettlement does not account for state or local government and stakeholder input, acquiescing instead to the demands of federal contractors like Catholic Charities and their agency’s funding needs.   Prior resettlement patterns are used to justify upending local communities along with accusations of racism and xenophobia.

In fact, the recent trip by State Dept. director Larry Bartlett to Ft. Wayne, Indiana is very telling in this regard.  “We really do see this as a partnership with the community,” which is why they meet with “stakeholders” who are identified resettlement agencies, service providers, advocates, the mayor, and refugees themselves.

It is time for the State Dept. and the rest of the refugee resettlement bureaucracy to recognize and publicly affirm that the state and local taxpayer is very much a stakeholder in this venture.  When federal contractors like the Catholic Charities TN Office for Refugees claims that they would be violating federal law if they didn’t enroll the clients they voluntarily choose to sponsor and bring to the state of TN from another continent, into state-funded programs like TennCare (the state’s Medicaid program), I as a taxpayer and citizen of the state, have a right to be a stakeholder recognized and valued by the State Dept.

The 2013 ORR Voluntary Agencies Matching Grant Program Guidelines on page 9 states that: “ORR recognizes that weekly cash payments may make certain MG cases ineligible for the USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid.  Thus, local Matching Grant Program service providers may give some of the weekly allowance in the form of vouchers if such a form of payment is in the overall best interest of the client and he/she concurs.”

In other words, gaming the system to shift more cost to the state taxpayer for the federal program.

The bureaucracy of refugee resettlement and in particular, the private federal contractors that benefit monetarily from taxpayer largesse compounded by elected officials’ anxiety over being called the same derogatory names as taxpayers who ask legitimate questions, ignore the fact that Catholic World News reported in August 2012 that “Federal funds account for nearly 93% of USCCB’s migration/refugee budget…that over 92.5% of [their] $72.1 million budget came from federal grants and contracts while under $25,000 came from private donations.”

All in direct contravention of the letter and intent of the various Cooperative Agreements.  Just like the individual resettlement agencies.

Despite Congress’ enumerated power over immigration, recognition must be given to the fact that even Congress’ spending power does not extend beyond a state’s borders into a state’s treasury.  Every dollar of cost that the federal refugee resettlement program shifts to the state taxpayer, is unsupported by any permissible federal power and constitutes at best, an unfunded and impermissible federal mandate.

Absent meaningful, objective consultation with local residents and state legislators who approve the state’s budget, the State Department should not be allowed to approve one more Reception & Placement proposal for Tennessee.  That is, at least until the state and its taxpayers get a full and honest disclosure of what the federal program is costing the state’s taxpayers.  They should have a voice as to whether they consider this a funding priority.  If not, cash flush refugee and immigrant advocacy groups like TIRRC are free to use their funds to privately sponsor refugees even if it has to reduce the money it spends on lobbying.

Above all, the name calling has to stop.

Respectfully,
Joanne Bregman
Tennessee

cc: Sen. Corker, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein, Durbin, Klobuchar,  Blumenthal, Hirono, Cornyn, Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Flake, Cruz
Rep. Fleischman, Gowdy, Poe, Smith, King, Jordan, Amodei, Labrador, Holding, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Gutierrez, Garcia, Pierluisi

Attachment:

Bridges

                   Govt grants            other contributions (not including foundations)

2008        $682,158            $47,031

2009        $641,801            $39,781

2010        $902,445            $30,562

Catholic Charities  TN

2008        $7,341,878            $2,484,456

2009        $11,078,694            $2,568,733

2010        $9,396,445            $4,173,312

2011        $7,322,336            $6,915,397 ($1,349,909 from USCCB grant from federal grant funds passed through)

Catholic Charities West TN

2008        $2,000,916            $139,571

2009        $2,112,095            $833,845

2010        $2,025,895            $336,671

2011         unavailable

2012        dollar amounts unavailable but annual report lists 48% of revenue from federal grants

CRIT

2005        $270,102            $3,925

2006        $388,259            $2,800

2007        $231,079            $7,550

2008        $434,710            $15,394

2009        $204,222            $60,109

2010        $213,105            $30,080

2011        $219,921            $36,749

2012        $197,304            $30,664

NICE

2009        $76,645            $7,056

2010        $175,233            $52,631

2011        $400,503            $46,331

Readers, this is our 7th post in our category for this year’s State Department meeting, here.

Testimony to the US State Department from New Hampshire

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

The US State Department will be holding its annual hearing on the “appropriate size and scope” of the refugee resettlement program on May 15th.  The meeting will be dominated by federal refugee contractors (LOL! disregard that ‘voluntary agency’ label, they are paid by you to resettle refugees) looking for a larger number and greater variety of refugees.  We urge concerned readers to send in testimony by May 8th (see my previous post for details).

Below is a testimony forwarded to my by Jeannine Richardson of New Hampshire.  See also testimony by John Williams of Texas, here.   You do not need to be an expert on the program or to write a tome—a few paragraphs will help greatly!

Ms. Richardson (emphasis RRWs):

Dear Representatives

My name is Jeannine Richardson and I am the President of Landlord Connection http://landlordconnection.com

We are a NH Company that offers rental history reports to landlords, property management companies and several housing authorities throughout the state of NH.  We have over 2,000 rental property owners/managers as our customers.

I can state that much of the government subsidized housing in NH is being taken by refugees leaving many lifelong NH residents on waiting lists of up to 4 years.  Many of these refugees have enormous trouble getting into the workforce and are competing with our residents for what few jobs are available. I suggest that a moratorium be in place unitl the time when our unemployment numbers fall below 5%.

My personal experience has been apartments left in disastrous conditions and after a few months, these refugees are abandoned by the agencies who brought them here.  The State of NH does not have the resources at this time to care for more refugees. As it is Manchester*** is dealing with overcrowding of its classrooms and is spending over $1million per year teaching English as a second language to people who speak 70 different languages.

The system is out of control and has turned into a moneymaking scheme for several non-profits in NH.

Here is a link to some information regarding these Refugee Agencies
http://american-rattlesnake.org/2012/01/the-fugees/

I’m tired of the “we are a nation of immigrants” myth as well. It’s an urban legend. Some of us have ancestors who were here over 350 years ago. How far back do we have to go? Is England a nation of immigrants too? After all, the Vikings landed there thousands of years ago. If I remember correctly the Romans and Saxons immigrated there too.There have been several periods in our history when immigration was stopped. In fact it should be stopped now but instead the pace has accelerated to over 2.5 million per year when historically the high point was 500,000. Since 2000, 30 million immigrants have arrived. That’s as many people as in all of Canada. I say enough already.

We don’t even have jobs for people already here so we want to bring in more competition? I know for a fact that the welfare rolls have increased because many of the disabled were working part time jobs as dishwashers, clean-up crews in restaurants, etc. Those jobs have been taken by these newcomers leaving the disabled with no opportunities. None of it makes sense to me. We are the third most populated country on the planet. Why do we import more people?

Some of these refugees who are allegedly fleeing somehow feel safe enough to visit their village for a month. In fact, the Manchester Union Leader featured a story of  last year who had gone home for a visit and his town had no water, when he returned to Manchester he told a group of nuns of their plight and they flew over there and  built a well for the village.

The refugee program is nothing more than a source of revenue from the Federal Government for these do-gooders. They are paid for each person they bring in while we are stuck paying for their airfare and everything else.I am tired of the scam being played by the UN on the American people.

I am hoping something can be done to stop the tremendous burden this is placing on Americans.

Sincerely and thank you for your time.

Jeannine Richardson

Cc: Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Representative Carol Shea-Porter, Manchester NH Mayor Theodore Gatsas, Nashua NH Mayor Donnalee Lozeau

US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, p/202-225-3951.

***For new readers:  Manchester has had enormous problems with refugee overload.  A year ago the Mayor tried to get a moratorium on refugee resettlement but was defeated in his effort.  Go here for all of our posts on Manchester.  Are they turning red states blue?  Sure looks like it!

Your one chance to tell the US State Department what you think about refugee resettlement is coming up in May

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

They want to know what you think the “appropriate size and scope” of the program should be for Fiscal year 2014.  (We are presently resettling an average of 70,000 refugees a year and many are coming from Islamic countries.)

If you have friends in the media, tell them to cover this hearing!

Here is my post from last week (I promised to repeat this every week until the deadline for testimony May 8th).

Readers this post is a repeat of one I wrote last week.  I promised to reprint this information every week until the deadline for testimony—May 8th—arrives.

You have virtually no voice in the decision about bringing refugees to America—where they come from and in what towns and cities they will be placed.  However, each year the US State Department hears mostly from federal resettlement contractors (nine major and approximately 300 subcontractors) to help them determine who (and how many) will be resettled.   The contractors have a vested interest because they are paid by the head (by you, the taxpayer) to resettle as many refugees as the State Department lets them have.

The State Department will be looking to set its (the President’s) goals for FY2014 on May 15th.

You can send testimony too!   Here is what you need to do, be sure to pay attention to the last part about copying your testimony to your elected officials.  (Your US Representatives and Senators have pretty much abrogated their roles in questioning this program.)

And, one last thing—The Boston Chechens were not the first refugee/asylee terrorists who have entered the US and been caught, just the most successful so far.

My post from last week:

Anne C. Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration—we love the UN!

Every week from now until May 8th, I’m going to repeat this post!

Do not be silent!

The US State Department holds a hearing, usually in May, largely populated by the refugee contractors telling sob stories and looking to boost the number and variety of refugees (not to mention the contractor’s income) to be admitted to the US in the upcoming fiscal year.  My report on last year’s hearing is here.

Last year, and maybe for the first time ever, critical comments outnumbered those looking to add more refugees to already overloaded cities and states.  Let’s do it again!

The whole Federal Register Notice is here.

The meeting’s purpose is to hear the views of attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Your testimony can be long or short, detailed or general, but get something in by the deadline of 5 p.m. May 8th!

Address testimony to:   Anne C. Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, US State Department, Washington, DC. 20037

Reference Federal Register Public Notice 8241

E-mail or fax to Delicia Spruell:

Persons wishing to present written comments should submit them by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2013 via email to spruellda@state.gov or fax (202) 453-9393.

Now listen-up, this is important!   If you don’t copy your testimony to your elected officials, you can be sure your testimony to the State Department will never see the light of day!

You must put cc at the bottom of your testimony and list the following:

~Your member of the House of Representatives  (look up their addresses!)

~Your US Senators

~Any elected officials in your state who may be interested

Also, send to (and list on your testimony):

~US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.  Go here for list of Subcommittee Members.  You will be listing and mailing to the Subcommittee, however, if your US Senator is on that subcommittee then please be sure they are listed prominently on the testimony you send to the State Department.  Mail to:  U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.  Mail your testimony to the Subcommittee even if your Senator is not on it!

~House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.  Go here for a list of all the Subcommittees and see if your Member of Congress is on the Subcommittee.  But, even if he or she isn’t then still send your testimony here (addressed to the Subcommittee):  2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, p/202-225-3951.

When sending anything to your US Senators or Members of Congress always ask a question so that hopefully it forces them to answer your letter!  You might ask them to put pressure on the State Department to have this “hearing” held in several locations around the country!

If you plan to attend the hearing in Washington on May 15th (location and time details in my previous post), you need to let Ms. Spruell know by the same deadline.

Persons wishing to attend this meeting must notify the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone (202) 453-9257 by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, to reserve a seat.

Send me a copy of your testimony and indicate whether or not I have permission to publish it!

I made a special category for testimony last year, here.  So, check it out and see what others said last May.

Send copies to Ann@vigilantfreedom.com

For all posts relating to this hearing, go to our category entitled ‘Testimony for 5/15/2013 State Dept. meeting‘

A Texas reader has sent us his testimony, here, and it might be a good model to follow.  But, please give your own opinion, experiences, etc.   Politely!

Addendum:  Anne C. Richard revolved into her present position from the International Rescue Committee—what a coincidence!  Kinda cozy huh?

Sample State Department testimony: This one from Texas

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

As regular readers here know, the US State Department will be taking testimony in mid-May on the “appropriate size and scope” of our refugee resettlement program for fiscal year 2014.

Prior to last year the testimony was almost exclusively from the federal contractors (nine major and approximately 300 subcontractors) looking for more and a greater variety of refugees to resettle to your towns and cities.  Last year citizens concerned with the direction of the program actually outnumbered the contractors in the number of comments submitted.

We have described here how to prepare your testimony.   I also said, I would publish any you wish me to publish.

A reader, John Williams of Texas, has sent us his letter to the US State Department and we share it here with you for inspiration and guidance.  Your testimony may be long or short, detailed or general, but please send in something by the May 8th deadline!

Anne Richard
Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration
US State Department
Washington, DC. 20520

April 22, 2013

Re: Federal Register Public Notice 8241

Dear Ms Richard:

I am writing to submit written comments on the President’s FY 2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program as part of the upcoming May 15 public hearing in Washington, DC. Overall, I am writing to request that Refugee admissions be cut back dramatically to less than 5,000 admittances annually.

There are many reasons for this:

1)    Recent terrorist attacks suggest many refugees being admitted pose substantial risks to the United States and its citizens. There has been a tendency to relax scrutiny of refugees and other aliens in an effort to not appear prejudicial to certain groups or religions. This effort, while perhaps well-intentioned, is naive and dangerous. Some individuals claim persecution precisely because they are considered dangerous to the country in which they live. Admitting such individuals merely moves the danger to the U.S.

2)    If pending Comprehensive Immigration Reform is passed, there will suddenly be a huge additional burden to U.S. unemployment and social services rolls at a time when we can least afford it. Refugees would have to compete with millions of low-skilled workers in an already saturated job market. If we are so anxious to legalize these millions already resident, we should take prudent steps to minimize the impact on our weak economy by reducing other immigrants.

3)    The existing resettlement system does not adequately take into account the desires and resources of the communities in which refugees are placed. As a result, refugees are often “dumped” into an area that is already saturated or is unable to provide the special services refugees often require. This is unfair to the community and can create a huge burden to the local tax base. The federal government should be prepared to support the refugees or not admit them.

4)    Refugee settlement has become a big business that has corrupted what was supposed to be a voluntary activity. If the voluntary agencies are indeed voluntary, they should be self-funding. As long as they depend upon the federal government they will advocate increased levels of admission and funding, regardless of the true cost to local communities or society as a whole.

5)    The refugee program was originally intended to provide safety to small persecuted groups and has become an open-ended tool of US foreign policy. This has perverted the purpose of the program and shows an extreme lack of sensitivity to the communities that are expected to absorb this burgeoning flow of humanity. If the program were reduced then the State Department would presumably select their admissions with better care.

6)    In conjunction with the above, U.S. admissions policy has become subsumed to the needs of the UNHCR. We should not allow a foreign agency to dictate policy to the U.S., especially when it causes adverse effects to local, often small, communities in rural areas. We Americans in “flyover country” do not exist to satisfy the whims and needs of the UNHCR.

7)    Finally, the current high levels of refugee admissions are causing untold damage to small communities all across the U.S. It appears the State Department is either unwilling or unable to acknowledge this very real human cost. This is perceived as callous and arrogant treatment of some of the most generous and caring people in the world. The resulting resentment generated will eventually breed a callous cynicism that will endanger other humanitarian programs deemed desirable by the State Department. This will become apparent when voters demand a general moratorium on foreign aid and an isolationist position for U.S. foreign policy.

Like many programs created by the federal government, the refugee programs have suffered from significant mission-creep and a tendency to become corrupted by the money involved. In all of this the needs of the refugees as well as the “welcoming communities” have become secondary to other priorities. The State Department needs to review the original purpose of the program and what a “voluntary agency” is supposed to be and do. A good way to begin would be to pare admissions to a minimum while re-designing how the program is administered and funded. Enough is enough.

Sincerely,

John D Williams

CC:  Senator John Cornyn
Senator Ted Cruz

Representative William Flores

US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Thanks Mr. Williams!

Again, go here for instructions!

I just realized that we need to make a new category for this year.  Last year some testimony and my commentary of the May meeting was posted here.   I’ll make a category now for ‘Testimony for 5/15/2013 State Dept. meeting’ for your easy access going forward.