Tag: refugee welfare

Good luck getting data on refugee welfare usage when Congress can’t get it!

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

There have been many efforts in recent years to press local and state governments to cough up data on the cost of refugees placed in communities—most recently in North Dakota and Minnesota.

This Congressional Research Memo to Congress from 2015 gives you a glimpse in to why they aren’t able to do it (assuming they were willing!).

Refugees are not identified (separately from other immigrants) at the local level when they go to the local social service agency to get their “benefits.” Indeed, immigrants may not even be designated as such on welfare applications.

Of course, this could easily be remedied by writing a few laws that direct local welfare agencies/school systems getting federal funds to require immigration status at the time one signs up for benefits or enrollment.  Is the recipient a ‘refugee’ or one of many other categories of legal immigrant (or illegal!)?

In 2015, unknown Senators attempted to get some answers and this is what they got. (Hat tip: Joanne)

So, has the recipient of the report done anything about it?

From Congressional Research Service:

 

 

So the Senate requester is directed to this table (below) from the 2013 ORR Annual Report to Congress. You might wish to see some of those yourself by clicking here.

You will find, as I have (see here in 2014), that data like this below is completely extrapolated from self-reporting by refugees who are called on the phone (who can be found and who answer the phone!) and are WILLING to tell a stranger (a contract worker) what ‘benefits’ they are getting.

You can then imagine how useless this data really is!

 

 

As much as I want to encourage efforts to get the true costs for refugees to the American taxpayer, it won’t be possible until local and state agencies are forced to get the information on immigration status of someone coming in for benefits.  And, if it is required to divulge one’s legal status (refugees are legal of course), then, in the process, the local agency will necessarily have to admit the illegal status of some beneficiaries of your taxpayer-funded kindness. They do not want to do that!

And, one more thing!  If you think you can get a true study where you live, you must make sure that included in the cost side of the ledger are costs to the criminal justice system (how much is a life sentence in prison costing some states?), interpreter costs, emergency room costs, monitoring and medicines for those with TB, and the cost to the US economy of remittances (money sent out of the US economy to the refugee’s home country).  Other costs I’m not thinking of?

Will President Trump restrict welfare use by refugees too?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

When President Trump announced in Iowa last week that he planned to ask Congress for a tightening of restrictions on welfare use by immigrants—barring their use of welfare for 5 years—I wondered if he would wander in to the minefield of refugee welfare use.

Iowa announcement June 21, 2017—immigrant welfare use to be restricted (crowd cheers!).

Readers here know that refugees use social services/welfare immediately (within weeks) upon arrival and that the primary job of their resettlement contractor*** is to get them signed up for their services ASAP.
Here is Trump in Iowa last Wednesday:

“The time has come for new immigration rules that say … those seeking immigration into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump said.

My ears pricked up and I wondered if he means refugees too.  If he does, he can expect wailing and moaning on the level he received when he announced his original travel ban.
(See here that refugees are exempt from the Clinton-era restrictions on welfare use by immigrants.)
If Trump persuades Congress to disallow welfare for 5 years for all classes of immigrants that would certainly be a backdoor way to rein-in the US Refugee Admissions Program. Maybe, just maybe, the mostly ‘religious’ resettlement contractors*** would have to raise private charitable money or cut the number of the ‘clients’ they ‘care for.’  And, heck, maybe those meatpackers would have to go to paying higher wages as refugee families now use welfare as a back-up for low-wage earnings.
But, don’t hold your breath!
If you are interested in reading more on ‘refugee welfare’ click here for my extensive archive on the subject.
***For new readers, these are the nine federal refugee contractors whose main job is to get their refugee clients their social services in the first three months and then they move on to a new set of paying clients (they are paid by you, the taxpayer, at a per head price for placing refugees in your towns and cities).

Maine: Former Iranian refugee who died for ISIS was on welfare in US

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

That is the headline, but what has the Leftwing media done in Maine?  They are attacking the governor because he released the information thus not respecting the Islamic terrorist’s privacy in death!  Ahhhh!
By the way Governor LePage is one of only a few governors who have had the guts to criticize the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program over the years.

Robyn Merrill
Robyn Merrill (left) speaking at the State House in support of continued state welfare for the many refugees and asylum seekers arriving in Maine. Photo: http://www.centralmaine.com/2015/03/03/critics-turn-out-in-force-to-oppose-lepages-plan-for-general-assistance/gallery/

Here is the news at Maine Public Radio:

Gov. Paul LePage has pounced on the recent unsealing of court documents showing an Iranian refugee who resettled in Maine and later joined the terror group ISIS.

But the governor’s eagerness to use Adnan Fazeli’s radicalization here to rail against welfare benefits for refugees may have led him to run afoul of a federal law designed to protect the identities of welfare recipients and their families.

State officials have not confirmed that Fazeli, or his family, received welfare benefits when he lived in Maine between 2009 and 2013. According to federal laws governing food stamps and cash assistance, they’re not supposed to.

“It’s concerning if that was indeed reported by Maine officials because federal law is clear that people’s confidentiality should be protected,” says Robyn Merrill, director for Maine Equal Justice Partners, an advocacy group for the poor.

Merrill’s concerns were raised by a report in the Boston Herald in which Maine state officials are quoted as saying that Fazeli, and his family, received cash and food stamp benefits. [Here is one of several stories about the terrorist on welfare in Maine—ed]

Those benefits, known also as SNAP and TANF, are federal programs, funded mostly with federal tax dollars.

According to federal rules, the identities of benefit recipients are confidential — only law enforcement, immigration officials and state administrators are allowed to know who receives the benefits.***

Those same officials, according to the law, “must adequately protect the information against unauthorized disclosure.”

The Herald story also contained an interview with LePage, who told the newspaper that the Fazeli case prompted him to order a review of all benefit programs for refugees.

More here.
***Now how does the claim by Maine Equal Justice Partners square with a law we told you about in the previous post where the federal ‘Work Opportunity Tax Credit’ is available to businesses that hire people (refugees!) who are on welfare, including food stamps.  If there is supposed to be secrecy surrounding one’s status as a welfare recipient, how is a company which wants to take advantage of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit know which welfare programs the refugee (the prospective employee) is receiving?

It seems everyone is allowed to know who is on welfare, but you! the taxpayer paying for it all!

For new readers, our Maine archive is here.

Refugees should not be a "public charge" says reader

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Editor:  This is another good guest commentary (two others in the last week may be found by clicking here).  We welcome guest writers because a) the issue is too large for me to cover it all, and b) some great writers and investigators are developing across the country and they need to be heard!  Emphasis below is mine.

REFUGEES AND THE “PUBLIC CHARGE”

by Bob Enos (Willmar, MN)

The tradition of immigration in America historically contains a concept known as the “public charge”. As the purpose of immigration in America was purely to build the American nation, all new entrants have been expected to “sing for their supper”. That is, we were expected to take advantage of the opportunities America provides to build a better life, while not becoming a burden to our fellow Americans.

Department-of-Public-Welfare---27847950

Today, the public charge concept continues to be an element of federal immigration law, but it has been watered down. It also provides exceptions to certain classes of immigrants.

First, there are myriad forms of taxpayer-funded assistance that our federal legislators have decreed are not really burdensome to taxpayers after all. They include: Section 8 housing; health insurance; food stamps; child care; public schools; and institutionalization.

These non-cash public assistance programs can and often do exceed the low wages that unskilled workers earn, even full-time workers.

Second, under Section 213A of the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act, both refugees and asylum seekers are actually excused and exempted from any federal requirement to be self-supporting! This means that, unlike other immigrant classes who are required to earn a livelihood in order to avoid possible deportation, the refugee has no such worry.

In short, if a refugee is deported, it will NEVER be due to the financial burden s/he places upon the rest of us!

As pressure builds for comprehensive immigration reform, legislators in Washington MUST address (a) eliminating the exclusion and exemption of refugees and asylum seekers from the public charge test, and (b) the expanding the definition of public charge burdens to include not only cash welfare payment, but non-cash assistance as well.

Let me know if you have something you wish to share by responding in a comment to this post.  I’ll contact you and tell you how to send your short submission!

Somalis carrying millions of dollars out of US in suitcases; are welfare benefits going to Somalia?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

See this story about investigations underway in Seattle where Somalis are carrying American dollars back to Africa (which is legal, but questionable under the circumstances described in the story from King 5).

Sea-tac
Are these your tax dollars flying from Sea-Tac to Somalia?

Here is the first question that popped into my head when I read this story:
So, if Somalis can travel back and forth to Somalia safely (carrying suitcases stuffed with American dollars that will be lost to the US economy), then doesn’t that mean that Somalia is safe enough and we no longer need to be resettling Somalis at the rate of 750 a month into your towns and cities!
Read this incredible story!  Here are just a few snips:

Travelers pulling suitcases full of cash started showing up at Sea-Tac Airport last year holding tickets for flights headed out of the United States.

Transporting large amounts of cash overseas isn’t illegal. But it was who was carrying the money … and where it was going that caught the attention of security officials.

[….]

The people carrying the cash didn’t hide the fact from Customs. Just the opposite, they reported it. Anyone traveling out of the United States is required to declare any amount over $10,000 and fill out a one-page federal form.

These reports are what caught the attention of terrorism investigators in Seattle.

“The thing was the amount, the staggering amount,” said Glenn Kerns, who was assigned to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) at the time.

The couriers were working for Seattle-area hawalas – businesses that derive their name from the Arabic word for “transfer.” Hawalas are part of a traditional system of informal banking in Muslim communities.

[….]

Kerns said the first cash shipment rolled through Sea-Tac early last year. A man carrying $750,000 in cash told Customs officials he was transporting the money overseas. Over the next several months, couriers carrying as much as $2 million boarded commercial flights at Sea-Tac.

“One hawala – Seattle hawala – sent out $20 million last year,” said Kerns.

[….]

Kerns was a Seattle police officer who retired last December after serving 14 years on the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

He uncovered something suspicious when he analyzed financial records that the hawalas are required file with the Washington Department of Financial Institutions.

He researched the names of the ten clients who transferred the most money through hawalas last year.

“All ten of them were on welfare benefits. DSHS benefits,” said Kerns. “It’s fraud. Straight up fraud – every one of them.”

Continue reading here.

I’ll bet a buck that most of the money in those suitcases is your money from those welfare benefits!