Editors note:   This is one more in a series of posts on the upcoming, May 15th, US State Department hearing on the “size and scope” of the Refugee Resettlement Program for fiscal year 2014.

For all of our posts and background information on the meeting go to our special category here.

A reader from Washington State shared his views with us after having sent this below to the State Department:

Dear Ms. Spruell,

I am writing to comment on the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for FY 2014.

It is my understanding, backed up by several well-documented sources, that the vast majority (upwards of 90 percent) of the “refugees” resettled under this program have been under no threat of persecution in their home countries, and are simply seeking the economic advantages of living in the U.S.  Once resettled here, they frequently make return trips to their countries of origin, undermining any claim that they their safety or freedom had been in danger.  They (and their financially-motivated sponsors) are taking advantage of the goodwill and naivety of the American people, who believe their country is engaged in helping people whose lives are under serious threat.

Our nation’s entire immigration system has become corrupted by moneyed interests, and is imposing on the American people displacement levels of immigration that they have not asked for and do not want.  We now resettle more than three times the number of refugees as the rest of the industrialized world combined.  Numerous small towns, in states like Maine and Minnesota, have been transformed beyond recognition after being targeted as resettlement locations for Somalis and Ethiopians.  We have been given virtually no say in these decisions, nor even been told by the government what is actually going on.

In reviewing the Refugee Admissions Program for FY 2014, I ask that you:

·        Drastically scale back the total number of refugee admissions granted each year.  A ceiling of 20,000 would still leave us as the leading country of resettlement in the world.

·        Consult with local and state jurisdictions before a community is chosen for resettlement, always giving them the right of refusal.

·        Make clear that resettlement in the U.S. is the option of last resort, with humanitarian efforts focused on helping displaced persons remain in their countries of origin.

Thank you for your attention.

Readers should, from time to time, visit this site where the State Dept. tracks arrivals.  So far this year (6 months into the fiscal year) we had resettled 34,243 refugees which means we will likely have a banner year and surpass 70,000 (the largest number of refugees usually arrive at the end of the fiscal year).  We are also on target for the largest Somali resettlement numbers in recent years.

But before we get to it, be sure to visit VDARE where Paul Nachman has penned an excellent piece urging readers there  to send in testimony by close of business tomorrow, May 8th.  He has some information from years before I followed this program that I found very enlightening. I think you will too.  Mr. Nachman shared his testimony with us here, yesterday.

Go here for instructions on how to send your comments (and don’t forget to copy them to your elected officials in Washington and you can throw in some state and local officials too for good measure).  Tomorrow is the deadline!  E-mail or fax instructions:

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.

The comments below are from Jon Sobieski of North Carolina (emphasis mine):

North Carolina is in the top ten resettlement states in the US (surprised?).  Type ‘North Carolina’ into our search function for more.

(See previous testimony from Texas, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Montana.  We have an archive here for all posts relating to this meeting.)

Mr. Sobieski wrote to his Senators and included his testimony.  In a P.S. he asks the Senators this question:

PS I would also like to know why the State Dept. has banned any camera or recording devices at their 1 day public comment hearing?  Isn’t that my tax money that is paying for that meeting?  What are they afraid of that they refuse to allow recording at the public hearing?

Readers should know that last year a serious effort was made to get the State Department to allow recording of the meeting but it was denied.  Good question Mr. Sobieski!

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

April 27, 2013

Re: Federal Register Public Notice 8241 Comment Request

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. Sadly, the refugee and asylum resettlement programs have become overtly corrupt and harmful to America.   Below I outline only a few examples of the negative effect these programs are having.  For a nation that is broke, why are we financing huge numbers of inassimilable and dependent people into America?  Why do we allow family chain immigration for the initially approved refugee?  While I want to end the refugee and asylum programs due to their corruption and negative effects on communities, that request will likely be denied.  Therefore, I ask that a full scale audit of the performance of refugees and asylum seekers and the NGOs placing them in the US be completed before any further immigration is allowed.  There are so many questions that demand answers.  What percentage of entrants continues to use welfare after 1 year, 2 years, 5 years?  Can we ban Muslim immigration due to the inherent hatred and preaching of violence toward nonbelievers demanded by Islam and its teachings?  If no outright end can be considered, I urge that the government dramatically reduce refugee and asylum entries to less than 3,000 per year total including family resettlement (if family resettlement is not banned outright ).

The following are only a few of the many reasons that refugee and asylum entry must be stopped or drastically curtailed:

1)    The Boston marathon attacks were committed by jihadis allowed into the US as part of family repatriation.  What is more disconcerting is how their parents were able to easily attain asylum.  Just like that.  They were here on tourist visas and through the father’s sister, were able to get asylum status.  Who checked on these people?  Why do asylum seekers get unlimited welfare access?  Forever?  They did not pay a dime into the system and milked it for all it’s worth.  If their homeland was so terrible, why did they go back on ‘tourist’ visits and now live there permanently apparently.  Now we learn the mother was a shoplifter and skipped back to southern Russia to avoid trial for a $1600 theft (shoplifting) at Lord and Taylor’s.  Are they still on welfare?  Are we depositing welfare payments in their bank accounts in Russia?  America is a sucker and the State Dept. is the biggest sucker of all.  What about the hundreds of thousands of Somalis that the State Dept. has imported?  Is the State Dept. even aware of the criminal behavior Somalis are notorious for in Minneapolis?  Entire communities have been destroyed.  They don’t call areas of Minneapolis ‘Little Somalia’ for nothing.  There is truly a perverse agenda at the State Dept. as they bring in more and more inassimilable groups and dump them in American communities. And who pays for this folly?  We do, the struggling taxpayers.

2)    Who audits these NGOs like the IRC, Catholic, Hebrew, and so many others?  Is anyone looking at the long term ramifications of allowing these NGOs to have free reign to import thousands of inassimilable groups and dump them in our towns?  Why do officers of these NGOs make more than the President? David Milliband was just  hired as CEO of one group (International Rescue Committee) with a $430,000 salary!  Over half of their funding is paid by US taxpayers, others are over 90%!  Does anyone care about the citizens who have to deal with these NGOs and the inassimilable people they dump into our communities?

3)    The State Dept. is failing at screening evil asylum seekers, you appear to only be concerned with import quotas and spending all the money the foolish Congress allots to you.  Damn the American citizens.  Who cares about them and their communities?  To me, the State Dept. was right there in Boston helping these Muslim jihadists build and place these bombs so that they could slaughter the infidels they so despise.   Meanwhile, the stealth jihadists collect welfare and laugh at the stupid infidels in the US.  But it is the State Dept’s failures in managing this corrupt program that is the true evil.  It is as if the State Dept.  is a sponsor of terrorism against the American people.

4)    Why are we importing evil and inassimilable groups when we are broke and suffer from high unemployment?  Due to these groups low IQs and extremely low education levels, the only jobs they can get are the same jobs that our own poor and low IQ citizens are fighting for.  On top of that,  these NGOs provide free training and financial incentives to employers to hire these people over our own citizens.  This has to stop.

5)   Why are we financing NGOs?  Aren’t they supposed to be voluntary and charitable enterprises.  Instead, they are BIG BUSINESS feeding at the taxpayer trough.

6)    The refugee program, like all govt programs, started out small with a tightly targeted purpose and benevolent intentions.  Now it is a monster devouring billions of dollars and destroying our communities.  Indeed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

7)    In conjunction with the above, U.S. admissions policy has become subsumed to the demands of the UNHCR. The UN is not our friend.  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 owe the UN nothing, we owe the world nothing.   We should no longer acquiesce to the UN’s demands and sharply and I mean sharply curtail all asylum and refugee admissions.

The State Department should declare a one year moratorium on settlement and take a critical look at how this program has been corrupted and how adversely it is affecting American communities.

To fully understand the corruption and incompetence in America’s refugee and asylum program, I recommend you study at length the rich and insightful Refugee Resettlement Watch website.

Sincerely,

Jon Sobieski

CC:  Senator Richard Burr, Senator Kay Hagen
Representative Mel Watt
Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Additional CCs to Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Lindsay Graham Senator John McCain

For your faxing enjoyment, Mr. Sobieski has included this list of fax numbers for Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  (you will probably need to put a ‘1’ in front of each number.

Handy numbers to have if you have comments to fax on S. 744 as well!

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!