We have a huge archive on the problems in Manchester, NH with refugee overload and the mayor’s efforts there to get the flow under control, pleaseclick here for dozens of posts on the city whose school system struggles with over 80 languages spoken within its student body. Barbara Seebart (left) made the announcement for the state of NH. Here we are told NH usually only gets about 200 refugees (huh?) a year and likely no Syrians. https://www.nhbar.org/publications/display-news-issue.asp?id=8085
The numbers for the new fiscal year (to begin on September 30th) were published here on Saturday. Manchester, Concord and Nashua will be ‘welcoming’ a total of about 500 refugees selected by the UN and the US State Department. Citizens concerned in those three cities should be demanding that your elected officials get a copy of the R & P Abstract (a planning document)*** that the resettlement contractors working in the state have produced. The document (usually kept secret) should be made public, but I’ll bet the agencies have never even mentioned that document to the mayors and councils in the three cities.
According to figures provided by Seebart, the predominant countries of origin for the projected new arrivals for both Ascentria Community Services (formerly Lutheran Social Services) and the International Institute of New Hampshire (IINH) are Bhutan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Iraq. The proposed resettlement sites are Manchester, Concord and Nashua.[You will get Syrian Muslims in NH!—ed]
The International Institute of New Hampshire’s proposed caseload is for 225 individuals – 170 individuals or 25-35 families in Manchester, and 55 individuals or 10-15 families in Nashua.
Ascentria Community Service’s proposed caseload is 270 individuals: 135 individuals or 30-35 families in Concord, and 135 individuals or 30-35 families in Nashua.
When that photo was taken in 2015, someone got it wrong. NH didn’t take 200 refugees in fiscal year 2015, but 446 according to the US State Department’s own data.
Checking that data just now I see that Manchester got 120 refugees from 9 different countries in FY2015, so for FY 2017 they will be upping that number by 50. (Since we are still in about the middle of FY2016 I didn’t bother checking this year).
*** See Reno, Nevada’s R & P Abstract here to get an idea of what information this document contains. Reno’s primary resettlement contractor, USCRI, is the same one operating through its subcontractor, the International Institute of NH, in New Hampshire.
….we are harmless, we smile, we just make jewelry and hope to get a business loan via the federal taxpayer so we might help our people.
Rohingya women weaving a new life in New Hampshire. Photo SHAWNE WICKHAM/SUNDAY NEWS
Here is how the gushy storyfrom Nashua, NH begins (hat tip: Jeannine):
NASHUA — They are stateless: persecuted in their own country, shunned in others. Most Americans have never heard of them.
But a small circle of refugee women has been quietly weaving a new life here for their families and, perhaps, their people.
“Stateless” is the buzzword these days for an easy ticket to refugee status. Stories like this one (about women refugees) are meant to soften you up—after all, how threatening can a bunch of women be who weave jewelry in New Hampshire?
But, where are the men and when are they coming? Surely these young women won’t be marrying into the local New Hampshire population.
Right now, their men are busy waging immigration Jihad in Australia and Indonesia. PR articles like this one are meant to soften you up for the next wave.
To its credit, the US State Department resisted for years taking Rohingya Muslims from camps in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar and elsewhere in the region, but as we have reported here now on several occasions, we are resettling Rohingya.
Indeed, at last year’s State Department meeting, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops cited the Rohingya as a potential new source of “refugee” bodies to resettle (they are paid by the head for the refugees they bring to your towns).
For new and ambitious readers, we have 143 previous posts on Rohingya here.
Update April 4th: A reader directed us to the comment section at this Union Leader story (I admit I hadn’t previously read them), but here is just one of many great comments. This one is from Jeannine Richardson and sums up the feelings of many:
Rick D’Alarcao [another commenter] – I think you and Ginger should offer to take in a few of these refugees if you think we need more of them. Put your money where your alleged “do-gooder” mouth is. Liberals are always do-gooders with other peoples’ money. That should be the motto of the Democrat Party.
Just a reminder, Ms. Richardson sent testimony to the US State Department hearing last May. We published it here. So please all of you send a statement to the State Department this year!
This story is a few days old now and I held it up because I have so much to say about this latest flare up in New Hampshire between a federal refugee resettlement contractor and the elected officials in Manchester and Nashua.
Unfortunately, this is going to have to be Part I of what I plan to say because I am out of time for my ‘charitable work’ this morning of bringing you the news about LEGAL immigration programs and problems.
Before I give you a portion of this news story, keep a couple of things in mind. These contractors have to operate in secrecy (some agencies are worse than others) because they know that once citizens fully get wind of what is happening, citizens usually object.
And, the other point that you should know is that once a resettlement agency gets a foothold in your city, they get PAID BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT to process in the earlier refugees’ family members. That’s why I call this seeding! It’s also known as chain migration!
Resettlement contractors have a huge financial incentive to keep the family reunification applications flowing, and they will sucker poor residents of a city with a guilt trip about keeping the families together. Most Americans are a soft touch and they know it.
By the way, there is no federal law that says they have to place the extended family within 50 miles of their other family members, maybe the State Department tells them that, but Congress never did. And, besides as this article points out, refugees will move anyway within a few months because they want to be with their own ethnic group.
Note location of Nashua directly south of Manchester. Concord has them too.
Here is the story from the Union Leader (Ready or Not, the refugees are coming). Emphasis below is mine:
The state’s refugee resettlement program is expected to spread from Manchester to Nashua in the coming weeks, with 50 refugees headed toward the Gate City. Officials in both cities are expressing concern over the plans.
“I was talking about my concerns with the head of the International Institute*, and the next communication I have from them is to say that they (the refugees) are coming, and we’ve found housing for them,” said Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau.“I asked, ‘Where? When? Who’s coming? Are there any children?’ No one has any answers. The concerns I raised were real ones, and I feel like they weren’t addressed at all.”
The International Institute of New Hampshire (IINH) has been working for months to resettle another 200 refugees in Manchester, despite a sometimes frosty relationship with city officials. Mayor Ted Gatsas wrote a letter in 2011 to the U.S. State Department, which oversees the refugee program, faulting its “complete and utter lack of consideration for the local resettlement community.”
Citing the challenges the thousands of refugees already in the city face in terms of housing, education and employment, Gatsas later sought a moratorium on new arrivals, asking the Executive Council to withhold federal contracts to IINH and other resettlement agencies. The contracts were eventually approved.
Manchester Ward 3 alderman Pat Long, who headed a commission to study the refugee problems in Manchester, said he approached IINH officials months ago about the possibility of spreading out the 200 incoming refugees to other communities around the Queen City.
“There is a stipulation that resettlement take place within 50 miles of the local state office,” said Long. “The IINH office is located in Manchester, so we were asking that they look at other communities within 50 miles of the city as well. Nashua was one of them, and when I heard there were 50 refugees headed there, I thought at first they were part of the group of 200, but that’s not the case. The IINH has applied for and been approved to receive 50 additional refugees.”
[….]
“When we’ve questioned them in the past, the IINH always points out that these are families they are trying to keep together, that the refugees have family members here they are coming to be with,” said Long. “So my concern with this is, when the institute money runs out, and this group leaves Nashua, they likely have family here in Manchester. So it’s likely they will head here as well.”
[…..]
…. Lozeau said she has many concerns.
“It’s not enough to bring them just because you have federal money and the OK to do so,” she said. “Without doing the proper due diligence work, you are setting them up to fail, and that doesn’t benefit anyone. [including the citizens and taxpayers of the resettlement city—ed]
* The International Institute of New Hampshire is a subcontractor of the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, here. USCRI is headed by Lavinia Limon, here, who ran the whole federal Office of Refugee Resettlement for Clinton. She revolved out of the government door and into the government contractor door!
For more information, type ‘New Hampshire’ into our search function for dozens and dozens of posts on problems there.
Watch for Part II about what you can do in your towns and cities!
