Tag: The Asylumist

The Asylumist blog takes a whack at Wyomingites opposed to refugee program; perpetuates the big lie

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

I wonder what blogger and immigration lawyer Jason Dzubow thinks of the Somali scheme (surely encouraged by Lutheran Family Services Rocky Mountains who resettled thousands of Somalis to CO to work in meatpacking) for “refugees” to high-tail-it to Wyoming to pick up subsidized housing vouchers to take back to Colorado (our top post for two weeks now! see also here) and thus rip-off the needy people of Wyoming.

We missed this blog post by Dzubow ten days ago (I’m not a regular visitor).  But, this morning when I wanted to see what he has to say about the “unaccompanied alien children” issue, I saw this post, entitled: Wyoming, the “Equality State,” Is Anything But.

Washington, DC Immigration lawyer and blogger Jason Dzubow. http://www.lawmavens.com/html/jason_dzubow.html

Dzubow:

There is only one state in the Union without a refugee resettlement program–Wyoming. Late last year, the state’s Republican governor, Matt Mead, took some tepid steps toward establishing a public-private partnership to help resettle refugees in the Equality State. Predictably, those efforts were met by fierce resistance, both from inside and outside the state.

He credits Congolese refugee Bertine Bahige with getting the campaign going to bring refugees to Wyoming.  Truthfully Bahige doesn’t have that much power, Lutheran Family Services Rocky Mountains located in Colorado was already casting around for fresh territory as Colorado is in refugee overload. (Reportedly an Idaho office was looking for fresh turf as well.)

A former refugee, and now a Wyoming resident and high school math teacher, Bertine Bahige, began a campaign to change the situation and encourage Wyoming to join the rest of the country and establish a refugee resettlement program. As a result of his efforts, in September 2013, the Governor made some preliminary inquiries with HHS about establishing a resettlement program.

[….]

But once word got out that Wyoming was considering thinking about possibly creating a resettlement program, hundreds of people called the Governor’s office to express opposition to the plan. In response, a spokesman for the Governor issued a statement, “Wyoming is not setting up a refugee camp…. This is still very preliminary.”   [As I have said before, this comment about a “refugee camp” is meant to make the opponents look stupid—it is the Jonathan Gruber (voters are dumb) strategy being played out by elitists including this Republican governor.—ed]

Next, Dzubow suggests fear of fraud by the “religious charities” is of little significance.

Remember Lutheran Family Services Rocky Mountains wanted their efforts in Wyoming kept secret until they were further along in the process.   In my view, since Lutheran Family Services is almost completely funded with tax dollars it has forfeited the right to be called a “religious charity.”  It is a quasi-government agency and thus open to taxpayer scrutiny and accountability.  Here is Dzubow with his “religious charity” mumbo-jumbo:

Mr. Barnett is also concerned with fraud in the refugee system. Of course, fraud and costs are legitimate concerns, but so is protecting refugees, and to me, Mr. Barnett’s throw-the-refugee-baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach mischaracterizes and unfairly distorts the life-saving work of the religious charities.

Now here comes the BIG LIE!

In the final paragraph of Dzubow’s little lecture to Wyomingites, he says a state can determine how many refugees it will take!  That is a myth.  In reality, once a city or state has a refugee office opened (by one of the contractors or subcontractors of the US State Department and the Dept. of Health and Human Services), it takes an enormous and sustained effort by state and local elected officials to stop the flow—and it isn’t ever stopped completely once the office has begun bringing in the refugees.  The best they can do is get a brief slowdown.

Here is what happens:  The resettlement contractor brings in the original “seed community” (their term) and then they proceed to bring in the family members and then use a guilt-trip on those who say—it is too many! we can’t afford more!—suggesting that the complaining citizens of the city/state are mean-spirited, “unwelcoming,” greedy, racist boobs.

The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement might even call in the dogs (contractor ‘Welcoming America’) to calm the “pocket of resistance.”

Here is Dzubow’s final little lecturing guilt-trip (including the big lie) to Wyoming.  Blah! blah! blah!

In some ways, though, this is all a tempest in a tea pot. I doubt Wyoming would ever accept more than a handful of refugees (although it is a large state, it has a small population), and so in practical terms it wouldn’t mean much one way or the other. However, in symbolic terms, I think it is important. The United States has committed to protect a certain number of refugees each year. This commitment reflects our values as a nation and our position as the leader of the Free World. In fulfilling our commitment, it would be nice to see all 50 states doing their share. So come on Wyoming, we’re all waiting for you to join us. I think you will be glad you did.

Visit The Asylumist here for the whole post and contact information.

See our continually growing archive on Wyoming and Governor Matt Mead’s refugee ambitions, here.

Come on Mr. Dzubow, you can’t be serious! Change the definition of refugee? Build camps?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Jason Dzubow is an immigration lawyer and blogger—The Asylumist.  I read his blog from time to time and he is not a complete open borders NUT!  I especially like the fact that he talks so openly about asylum fraud. But here I suggest his idea of changing the definition of what constitutes a “refugee” (making it easier to enter and stay in the US for broad safety reasons) and then taking away the carrots (freedom to roam about and get social services) by keeping all of the illegals in refugee camps, to be off-the-charts crazy!

Immigration lawyer Dzubow sometimes has some really sensible things to say about asylum law—here he assumes that all sides want to solve the border crisis.

I, of course, would have no objection to creating refugee camps at the US southern border to hold law-breakers until we could make travel arrangements for their return home, but his idea of creating camps (with only the bare basic necessities) for all of the aliens getting in until they could be processed as successful asylum seekers (refugees) or sent home (terrorists and criminals presumably would be found out and sent home) a non-starter.

Why?

Because the Hard Left would have a major coronary and not one of the chickens in Washington would have the testicular fortitude to stand up against them.    Does Mr. Dzubow know what they do to the likes of Sheriff Arpaio for his camp-like jails and in his case his “campers” are definitely law breakers?

In fact, open-borders activist groups in Washington, like Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, have a campaign to do away with ALL detention for anyone getting into the US illegally, imagine what they would do if we set up camps like those in the Middle East, Turkey and Africa!

Should Dzubow’s proposal to change the definition of “refugee” pass Congress, without the stick (removing the pull factor) also passing Congress, it would be all over for America (but it probably is already).

Here is my simple plan:  Just completely militarize the border and send the thousands of “kids” home right now and that will end the “pull factor” pronto!

The Asylumist:

As our country struggles to respond to the influx, I wonder whether we need a new definition of “refugee.”

Under current U.S. law, if a person is physically present in the country and meets the legal definition of refugee, he will receive asylum. This is quite a nice benefit to receive. People who get asylum are able to remain here permanently. They can eventually become residents and later citizens. They can travel, work, and attend school. They can sponsor certain family members to join them in the United States. They are sometimes eligible for government assistance. These generous benefits are a “pull” factor because they encourage refugees to seek asylum here (as opposed to staying put or seeking asylum somewhere else). The benefits also create an incentive for people to file fraudulent asylum claims.

[….]

We could simply categorize as a “refugee” anyone who says that they are afraid to return home. In other words, if someone requests asylum in the United States, they would automatically be granted asylum. This sounds like a stupid plan, you say? Everyone and their brother would seek asylum here, including terrorists and criminals. Worse, it would put asylum lawyers out of business. Maybe so, but indulge me for a moment.

O.K. we will indulge, but after the carrot is granted, this stick won’t work!

The main question is how to deal with the likely increased demand under this new system? The easiest way to reduce the “pull” of asylum would be to reduce the benefits of asylum. Basic economic theory suggests that if it is easier to obtain asylum, more people will come here, but if the benefits are reduced, less people will come here [that part is exactly right!—ed]. So in order to offset the increased number of asylum seekers caused by reducing the barriers to asylum, we would need a corresponding reduction in benefits. How much of a reduction will provide this balance, I don’t know. But let’s say we reduce the benefits to the bare minimum: People who come here for asylum will be placed in a refugee camp indefinitely, they will receive only the supplies they need to survive, and they can leave only to return to their home country or to resettle in a third country.  [What third country would take them?  Every relatively affluent country is trying to reduce its own invaders! They aren’t going to take ours!—ed]

Read it all, it is worth it especially as he discusses the definition of refugee and how it is being misunderstood (is that on purpose?).

The problem with Mr. Dzubow’s plan (besides the obvious) is that he is making a fatal error in judgement.  He is trying to think of logical ways to solve the crisis while these people—the Obamas, the Soroses, the Munozes of  the no-borders pushers— are NOT trying to solve the crisis!  They want the borders gone altogether!

Compounding the problems with his logic is the FACT that our elected officials in DC, those who might like to find a solution, are apparently impotent against those forces working day and night to “change” America.

 

 

The Asylumist: A good source for info. on what else? Asylum

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday I wrote about the “asylum seekers” arriving by the boatload to Australian shores and then had a look at The Asylumist, a website written,with some humor, by an immigration lawyer.  I’d pretty much forgotten about the site (it is on our blogroll), but think I should check it out from time to time because it’s chock-full of information.

Worldwide, migrants are seeking asylum in ever-increasing numbers.

Readers, asylum seekers get to our borders on their own dime (refugees are selected and we fly them here) and often spend thousands and thousands of dollars to pay human traffickers (Some of these are the the OTMs–other than Mexicans–we often hear about from border watchers).  So right off the bat these are not people without resources.  However, if they are granted asylum they too get stuff, just as refugees do—social services, health care, food stamps, Section 8  housing, etc.

Here is my theory on why the number of asylum seekers coming to the US is (dramatically!) on the rise.   The refugee numbers have been stagnating in recent years due largely to much stricter screening for terrorists; the ones coming are increasingly not finding employment;  some refugee contractors and cities are overloaded; and we don’t take “refugees” from countries that are doing well economically or are relatively politically stable.  Plus, I suspect asylum seekers know that if they can just get across our border, that one day Obama will achieve his fondest wish and grant them all amnesty.  [LOL! that could solve some of the immigration court backlog!—ed]

Here is an old post at The Asylumist about the dramatic increase in asylum seekers.  A program once intended to help the occasional Soviet defecting ballet dancer, now dwarfs the refugee program itself.

A new report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) shows that asylum claims in industrialized countries have increased 20% from 2010 to 2011.  The United States continued to receive the most asylum seekers among the countries surveyed: approximately 74,000 asylum seekers in 2011.  This compares to approximately 55,500 asylum seekers for 2010, a 33% increase (among all countries, South Africa received the most asylum seekers).

The increase in asylum seekers to the U.S. is due largely to higher numbers from three countries: China (+20%), Mexico (+94%), and India (+241%).

The U.S. receives more asylum seekers from China than from any other country.  In 2010, we received 12,850 asylum seekers from China.  In 2011, we received 15,450 asylum seekers from China, an increase of 2,600 people or about 20%.  The large numbers are probably due to special provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act that provide for asylum for victims of forced family planning–these provisions were created specifically to assist people from China, and they certainly seem to have encouraged Chinese nationals to seek asylum here.  Indeed, of the 24,400 Chinese asylum seekers worldwide, the U.S. received about 63% of all cases.  This is a very high number, given our physical distance from China.   If these numbers continue to rise, I wonder whether it will cause us to re-think our decision to grant asylum to victims of forced family planning.

I find it hard to believe that Chinese young men hiding in trucks coming across the border or found in containers on freighters say they are escaping the one-child policy of the Communist Chinese government.  Young man:  ‘I want to come to America so I can have two babies!’  NO way!

Read blogger Jason Dzubow’s other theories.

Who knows why they are coming, but you can be sure American immigration lawyers are ready and waiting to help them explain in politically-correct and legally-acceptable terms why they are “persecuted” and want asylum (besides a job and social services).

What social services you ask?

Once granted asylum these Chinese, Indians, Mexicans, etc. etc. are entitled to welfare.  I kid you not!

In another post, Mr. Dzubow laments the closure of a special hotline for asylees to learn what they are entitled to receive from you, the US taxpayer.

The Hotline is gone and the Office of Refugee Resettlement website is the asylee’s only resource, and according to Dzubow the website stinks.  I think he has a point, I’ve been trying to sort out how the ORR works for over 5 years, can you imagine some Chinese guy who came over in a container figuring it out!

Until recently, if you were granted asylum in the United States,  you could call the National Asylee Information and Referral Line, a toll-free number, where you could speak to someone about benefits potentially available to you (such as food stamps, Pell Grants, medical assistance, etc.). For people granted asylum through the Asylum Offices, the toll-free number was–and still is–listed on the approval notice.

However, as of December 28, 2012, the Info Line is kaput. But have no fear–asylees can still learn about benefits (assuming there are benefits after we fall off the fiscal cliff). Visit the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Benefits page on the internet.

Unfortunately, the ORR website is not so easy to use. Admittedly, I am fairly inept with a computer, and so many people might have an easier time with this than me. But it really does seem confusing.

For one thing, the site directs the user to a map of the U.S., where she can click on her state to find organizations that assist with benefits. The organizations that receive ORR grant money are listed, as are state coordinators and directors. The problem is, I cannot tell who to contact to ask questions about benefits. If there is an NGO or ORR employee who helps asylees learn about benefits, this should be made more explicit.

There is a helpful fact sheet available in English and eight other languages, which explains certain benefits, such as the Employment Authorization Document, the Refugee Travel Document, and how asylees can obtain their green cards. But this does not help with medical benefits, food stamps, English language programs, and the like.

Be sure to look at the map.  You will find it interesting too!  Chinese asylee:  What is a Wilson Fish?   American taxpayer: Yeh, what is a Wilson Fish?

Another map worth checking out!  Here is the map at WRAPS showing which countries provided the most ‘refugees’, in the last three months of 2012.  You will see that you can count on two hands the number of ‘refugees’ we resettled from China and India.  Right now the leading sending countries are Iraq, Iran,  Burma, Bhutan/Nepal, Somalia, Cuba and a few others.

For new readers:  We have a whole category entitled “where to find information” and this post will be archived there.