Just as we have been discussing the testimony this past week by the FBI to the House Homeland Security Committee and how difficult it is to vet the thousands of Syrians in the UN’s pipeline to America, news is coming that the first Syrians are arriving.
This information about a Muslim charity giving grants for refugee resettlement is the first I have seen of this practice.
Head quartered in Alexandria, VA, Islamic Relief USA is not a rinkey-dink charity—in a recent Form 990 they reported $65 million in income in one year.
***Update***Ryan Mauro writing at the Clarion Project says that Islamic Relief USA is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (here).
“We all came as refugees and now it’s about time for us to give back,” said Semsudin Haseljic.
Syrian refugees arriving in Louisville, KY on Friday. Looks like nutritional deprivation was not a concern for this family
He arrived in Louisville to get treatment when he lost both legs in the Bosnian war. “It was difficult at the beginning because I was here by myself,” Haseljic said. “I didn’t have any money, any clothes, any family members.”
Today, he’s a caseworker with Kentucky Refugee Ministries. The organization with the help of the Bosnian American Islamic Center, and thanks to a grant from Islamic Relief USA, is bringing a family fleeing civil war in Syria. “This is a young couple, a husband and wife, and two young children,” Haseljic said.
Mohammed Masmoom and his family have had a long journey, stretching many months and miles, but when asked about his emotions today, all he could talk about was his welcome.
“He feels great that he saw all these people welcome him in the airport,” said Miriam Jaleel, who translated for the family.
The family was taken to the apartment that’s been rented in their name for a welcome meal, and then a weekend to adjust and decompress.
On Monday, Kentucky Refugee Ministries will begin explaining the services [including welfare—ed] they can expect, the English classes they’ll take and the help they’ll get finding jobs. The goal is for them to be self-sufficient in five to eight months and then help other families that Refugee Ministries expects to arrive in [from?] Syria.
By the way, Louisville is a preferred resettlement site for the federal government. And, Kentucky is a Wilson-Fish state which means that Kentucky elected officials at the local and state level have no say in any of this—it is all done with federal contractors like Kentucky Refugee Ministries.
But….Mitch and Rand could say a whole lot about this if they wanted to!
Throughout America mosque construction is underway due to the ever-expanding population of Muslim refugees that the US State Department is tucking away in the most unlikely places. Recently we learned that Muslims in Anchorage, Alaska were building a new mosque. Now comes this news from Twin Falls, Idaho (Magic Valley!)….
Does the State Department understand that, as they create Muslim enclaves, they are facilitating the Hijra–the Islamic Doctrine of Immigration—which says it is the responsibility of all Muslims to migrate?
(The story is from AP and published at Seattle.pi.)
You should know at the outset that the refugee program in Idaho is a Wilson-Fish program which means the state of Idaho government itself (including elected officials) have absolutely no say in the program.
In truth, no states can veto anything the feds and their contractors do (I don’t know any that have tried!), it’s just in Wilson-Fish states the secrecy surrounding resettlement is even worse. Refugee resettlement is a complete abrogation of State’s rights under the US Constitution, but has never been challenged as far as we know.
TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — One recent Friday, men took off their shoes and placed them in a shoe organizer near the entrance of the Islamic Center of Twin Falls.
They walked across green carpet into an area no bigger than a living room and paused, facing northeast toward Islam’s holiest city, Mecca. Several kneeled, heads bowed, while others sat in front of their imam, Bakhritdin Yusupov.
The room quickly filled until four lines formed before Yusupov. As many as 60 men gather to pray in this room on Fridays. In many countries, Muslims get Fridays off from work to go to their mosque, much as Christians have Sundays off to attend church.
Women also use the Twin Falls mosque, but jumu’ah, or Friday prayers, are required only of men. Sometimes the mosque is so crowded that people stand outside the door.
On Dec. 9, members of the Islamic Center of Twin Falls applied for a special use permit to expand and erect a new building on their site at 455 Addison Ave. The permit was approved the same day. [Chickens feared to speak post-Paris?—ed]
The next step is to get a building permit. But the nonprofit might need two or three years to raise $200,000 to build its 2,500-square-foot structure, said Imad Eujayl, center spokesman.
Recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Belgium and elsewhere have drawn much attention to Muslims, and stereotypes abound.
Indeed, two Muslims who frequent the Islamic Center here declined to be identified in the Times-News, saying public knowledge of their religion could hurt their business. [Interesting! Could there be other reasons they wouldn’t give their names?—ed]
But many others said they feel secure in Twin Falls, a city noted for its Refugee Center and constant influx of foreign immigrants. An estimated 1,000 Muslims live in the Magic Valley.
Read on if you feel like it. The article, written post-Paris terror attack, seeks to make readers feel better about Muslims.
More on “welcoming” Idaho by clicking here. Refugee Center website is here.
Snake River Gorge Idaho (http://www.strengthinperspective.com/Pictures-USA/Idaho-23/MagicValley.html)
OK? Has there been an Ebola scare in Idaho I missed?
Is the purpose of this news story (based on a press release from a resettlement contractor) the result of a real problem of “hostility” toward refugees in the Twin Falls, Idaho area, or was it meant to head any “hostility” off-at-the-pass before anyone gets an idea to be hostile?
Whatever happened to Idaho’s Uzbek refugee alleged terrorist?
The story at KMVT (Fox 14, Sun Valley) caught my attention this morning and led me down a winding trail of trying to figure out exactly why there is a refugee contractor with the name—College of Southern Idaho Refugee Center (CSIRC or P for Program). Why is a college involved in this?
I haven’t written much about Idaho over the years, but here is our archive of what we have.
Twin Falls, Idaho ( KMVT-TV / KSVT-TV ) – The South Central Public Health District and the College of Southern Idaho Refugee CenterDirector are speaking out after concerns have been raised over refugees arriving from West Africa.
In a news release, Logan Hudson with the Health District and Ron Black with CSI said, “Refugees come to the Magic Valley area in search of a new life, but right now some are being met with hostility and concern due to stigma from the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa.”
“None of our refugees are from West Africa; they are no more likely to have Ebola than anyone else living in this area. Every refugee goes through several rigorous medical screenings before they can enter into the United States,” said Ron Black, College of Southern Idaho (CSI) Refugee Center Director. “The medical screening and waiting period they go through is longer and more intense than any protocol used for ordinary travelers. Plus, most CSI refugees arrived years before the Ebola outbreak.”
Ron Black, Director of resettlement in Twin Falls: Some refugees are being met with hostility.
Stigma is happening in the Magic Valley due to several factors including myths and fears of the disease, gossip that helps spread the fear, and a lack of knowledge about how Ebola is actually spread.
[….]
This is a daunting time for everyone, especially our refugees. We ask that the community show empathyand most importantly remember that no one in this area, let alone the state of Idaho, has been diagnosed with Ebola.” said Ron Black, CSI Refugee Center Director.
Idaho is a Wilson-Fish state.
That means that the refugee program there is being run jointly between the feds and their quasi-government contractors with little state government control or oversight. Learn more about Wilson-Fish here.
The College of Southern Idaho Refugee Center is a subcontractor of the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (one of the big nine) and apparently doesn’t have a separate tax Form 990 (that I can find), so it’s hard to figure out exactly how big they are and how much of your tax dollars are flowing through it. See their history here.
The CSIRP has brought 2,500 refugees to Magic Valley providing workers to local businesses and bringing your federal tax dollars for their social services (aka welfare):
Since it’s inception, the CSIRP has resettled more than 2500 refugees from a variety of different continents; providing local businesses with a steady source of entry level workers.The Program has also brought more than $3 million of federal money and benefits back to the Magic Valley that have been used to purchase goods and services from local merchants.
I recommend if you are a reader from Idaho that you explore their website and also the Idaho Office for Refugees(NOT a state agency) which along with the federal government calls the shots in Idaho.
P.S. If anyone sees news stories about real hostility to refugees over Ebola, please send links to this blog post!
Editors note: One of the primary purposes of RRW is to educate readers about how the complex Refugee Resettlement program of the US State Department and the US Department of Health and Human Services (Office of Refugee Resettlement) works. When you have some basic understanding of how it operates (and how it may have been changed from its original legislative intent) you will be much more effective in demanding accountability for the taxpayers of your state and others (including the refugees!) who will be impacted by the program.
This is a states’ rights issue!
If you live in one of the following 11 states you should be paying close attention to how the program is run in your state and begin questioning whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to pass off a federal program to a non-profit group which effectively eliminates, or nearly eliminates, any state control of how state tax dollars are spent.
Do you live in one of these Wilson-Fish states?
Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee or Vermont.
***Update*** There are 12 W-F states at this time (Oct. 2015): Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont
A grassroots volunteer has prepared this important Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and answers about the federal Wilson-Fish program.
Holly Johnson (TN Catholic Charities) left, and Jan Reeves (Idaho Mountain States Group) right, call the shots on refugee resettlement in their Wilson-Fish states. http://www.isedsolutions.org/blog/wilson-fish/wf-workshop-highlights
What is Wilson-Fish?
There are 3 ways in which the federal government disburses the 8 months of federal refugee cash assistance (RCA) and refugee medical assistance (RMA) funds to eligible refugees.(1) These funds are disbursed through:
• a state administered program, or,
• a public-private partnership program, or
• a Wilson-Fish “alternative” program
The Wilson-Fish alternative (so named for its Congressional sponsors) was added in 1984 as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement alternative projects for refugees:
“[t]he Secretary shall develop and implement alternative projects for refugees who have been in the United States less than thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim support, medical services, support services, and case management, as needed, in a manner that encourages self-sufficiency, reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among the resettlement agencies and service providers.”
The Wilson-Fish amendment was initially introduced as part of the FY1985 Continuing Resolution on Appropriations. On October 2, 1984 when Senator Wilson introduced Amendment No. 6965, he stated very clearly that:
“The specific intention of this amendment is to encourage refugee self-support and employment in California, a State which consistently receives at least 22 percent of all incoming refugees. A disproportionate number of refugees end up on welfare rolls. The language in this amendment will allow alternative approaches to this welfare dependency cycle.” (emphasis added)
In contrast to the “specific intent” of the Wilson-Fish amendment, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has unilaterally and without legislative authorization, used the Wilson-Fish alternative to continue resettling refugees in states where the State has decided to discontinue participating in this non-mandatory federal program.
For example, the 1995 notice of available funding for Wilson-Fish projects states that “This announcement [for funding Wilson-Fish projects] also provides for an alternative project to be a vehicle to continue resettlement programs in States where the State government chooses not to administer RCA/RMA or equivalent programs.”
The U.S Office of Refugee Resettlement website states that “the purposes of the Wilson-Fish program are to:
~Increase refugee prospects for early employment and self-sufficiency
~Promote coordination among voluntary resettlement agencies and service providers
~Ensure that refugee assistance programs exist in every state where refugees are resettled”
The last “purpose” added by the federal agency, is not supported by either the language or intent of the Wilson-Fish statutory language.
Why did Congress feel there was a need to add an alternative program like Wilson-Fish?
Sen. Pete Wilson from California was the Senate sponsor of the Wilson-Fish amendment. When he introduced the amendment he stated very clearly his concern about the high rate of refugee welfare dependency, combined with the high number of refugees being resettled in his state.
His concerns were well founded. Center for Immigration Studies fellow, Don Barnett who has been researching and writing about issues related to refugee resettlement notes that:
“According to the latest data available, a federal study of refugees who have been in the country 5 years or less, the unemployment rate for refugees was 21 percent compared with 9 percent for the U.S. population in 2010. Twenty-six percent were dependent on cash assistance, 63 percent were in the food stamp program and 48 percent were in Medicaid or short-term federal Refugee Medical Assistance. The federal welfare program SSI is a good indicator of long-term welfare dependency rates. It is generally a lifetime entitlement and usually includes Medicaid and other social services. The federal study of arrivals over the previous five years found an 11.6 percent rate of usage – about 2.5 times the national average.
Most of this cost is borne by the federal taxpayer, but programs such as Medicaid have state cost components as well.”
How do states decide if they want to be a Wilson-Fish state?
The U.S. Office for Refugee Resettlement receives the application and decides. The scope of services available to refugees from a Wilson-Fish program is similar to that of the State-Administered Refugee Resettlement Programs, which in turn is similar to regular domestic public assistance programs. States, voluntary resettlement agencies, and other nonprofit refugee resettlement organizations may apply to initiate a Wilson-Fish program.
In several states, the State decided to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program. Thereafter, the U.S. Office for Refugee Resettlement (ORR) selected a refugee resettlement agency to operate as the “state designee” for purposes of receiving and disbursing federal funds to refugees who are not eligible for state Medicaid and cash welfare programs. In these states, the resettlement agency applied directly to the ORR to operate a Wilson-Fish project.
For example, data from Tennessee shows that once the state withdrew from the program and the federal contractor took over operating the program, resettlement numbers increased by approximately 66%. Why? The 2012 U.S. General Accounting Office report “Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program” documented the major contributing factor:
“Because refugees are generally placed in communities where national voluntary agency affiliates [local offices] have been successful in resettling refugees, the same communities are often asked to absorb refugees year after year. One state refugee coordinator noted that local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.” (emphasis added)
Which states currently operate as Wilson-Fish?
Wilson-Fish programs are currently operating in:
~Colorado, Massachusetts and Vermont but the State government still runs the program
~North and South Dakota – State has withdrawn; Lutheran Social Services runs the program
~Idaho – State has withdrawn; Mountain States Group runs the program
~Alabama, Alaska, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana (only partial withdrawal) – State has withdrawn; Catholic Charities runs the program
The parent organization of Lutheran Social Services is Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, one of the big 9 resettlement agencies that contracts with the federal government. In 2011, their total reported revenue was $31,653,748 of which $30,376,568 (96%) was taxpayer money. Their CEO was paid $204, 186 in salary and benefits.
The parent organization of Catholic Charities is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which is the largest of all the federal refugee resettlement contractors. Their 2011 reported revenue $72,102,484 included $66,723,452, which is approximately 93%, from federal funding.
Does the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement or the Dept. of Health and Human Services have the authority under the Wilson-Fish amendment to fund a non-profit organization and continue a resettlement program in a state when that State has withdrawn from the federal program?
The Wilson-Fish amendment did not address this issue specifically. All the amendment language did was allow for the establishment of “alternative projects” designed to accomplish the specifically stated goals of establishing a program that “encourages self-sufficiency, reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among the resettlement agencies and service providers.”
While the Secretary of the federal agencies must implement the objectives of the authorizing legislation, there is no language in the Wilson-Fish amendment that permits a federal agency to circumvent a state’s decision to withdraw from the federal program by funding a private non-profit organization to establish or continue the program in lieu of the state.
This issue is particularly relevant because of the federal government deliberately shifting the cost of its program to the states, and the utilization of state-funded resources to address long-term needs of refugees.
Funding announcements for Wilson-Fish projects identify two categories of Wilson-Fish projects: those to “establish or maintain a refugee program” in a State that has either withdrawn from all or part of the refugee program, and projects that provide an “alternative to the existing system” of providing for refugees.
Only this last category of project was intended and contemplated by the Wilson-Fish statutory amendment.
Despite this limitation and the fact that the 1995 funding notice, for example, reflected the intent of the Wilson-Fish amendment to “encourage alternative projects in areas where refugees have had a history of extended welfare utilization,” this notice and subsequent ones also state that funding for Wilson-Fish projects are a “vehicle to continue resettlement programs in States where the State government chooses not to administer RCA/RMA or equivalent programs.”
What happens to the mandated consultation process between resettlement agencies and state and local governments when a state withdraws from the federal program and a federal contractor is permitted to use Wilson-Fish as a “vehicle to continue [the] resettlement program”?
The Wilson-Fish State Refugee Coordinator position is paid as part of the federal grant meaning that the “state coordinator” is actually a federal contractor, not a state-paid employee. So if the state government has withdrawn from the federal program, the federal contractor running the program is no longer accountable to the state’s taxpayers or the state and local governments.
Tennessee is a good example.
The Tennessee state government withdrew from the refugee resettlement program in late 2008. The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) thereafter contracted with refugee resettlement agency Catholic Charities of Tennessee (CCTN) to operate as the “state designee” to disburse federal funds. CCTN then applied to ORR and was granted permission to operate as a Wilson-Fish. CCTN then set up a separate office called Tennessee Office for Refugees (TOR) as a separate department of CCTN. TOR would run the federal program for the state.
Under the Tennessee Wilson-Fish project, the required consultation and any monitoring of refugee resettlement activities in the state, is internal to Catholic Charities and the other resettlement agencies operating in the state. As described by CCTN, their Director of Refugee Resettlement consults with the TOR state refugee coordinator who also works for Catholic Charities. Consult with the state refugee health coordinator who also works for CCTN and who also reports to the same agency’s TOR state refugee coordinator is an internal process highly vulnerable to conflicts of interest. Nor does this closed, self-serving system lend itself to any objective or independent compliance monitoring.
CCTN’s annual reports show that its largest program is the Tennessee Office for Refugees – TOR. CCTN’s second largest program is its own refugee resettlement program which receives funding from TOR.
A 2011 report issued by the Migration Policy Institute, a refugee advocacy organization, claims that after the consultation process, all proposed resettlement plans are provided to ORR and states. “If a state opposes the plan, PRM [the federal agency] will not approve it.” The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations recommended that in the case of a disagreement among stakeholders over resettlement, the “state refugee coordinator should be able to request a moratorium for the community.”
Under what circumstances would a Wilson-Fish “state” refugee coordinator (who is a federal contractor), working in concert with the other federal contractor refugee resettlement agencies that earn their funding for each individual refugee they resettle, oppose a plan? Maybe if the numbers were too low? Requesting a moratorium would be a conflict of interest for a Wilson-Fish state refugee coordinator.
Following the pattern of what happens when refugee resettlement is privatized, TOR’s 2011 Wilson-Fish application detailed a plan to expand refugee resettlement in Tennessee by adding two new refugee resettlement agencies and by increasing the number of refugees brought to the state.
Are refugees served under a Wilson-Fish project allowed to enroll in Medicaid or receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, aka, cash welfare)?
The statutory language of the Wilson-Fish amendment states that:
“Refugees covered under such alternative projects shall be precluded from receiving cash or medical assistance under any other paragraph of this subsection or under title XIX or part A of title IV of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. 601 et seq.]”
Title XIX refers to Medicaid and part A of title IV refers to TANF (cash welfare).
The Wilson-Fish amendment was intended to address welfare dependency. The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has qualified the original language and intent of the Wilson-Fish amendment. The funding announcement notes that only when an application for an alternative Wilson-Fish project includes “alternative medical assistance” will the recipient be precluded from using Medicaid despite the statutory language.
When the Wilson-Fish amendment was introduced on October 2, 1984, Sens. Weicker and Proxmire both confirmed that the language of the amendment was “budget neutral” meaning that the amendment allowing for the alternative projects added no additional funds to the appropriations bill under consideration. Since there was no separate appropriation for Wilson-Fish projects, funding would be drawn instead from funds otherwise earmarked for refugee cash and medical assistance (RCA and RMA) and social services allocations for the State-administered program.
Refugees are only permitted to use either Medicaid or the 8 month federal refugee medical assistance (RMA) – they cannot get both. And they either get TANF or refugee cash assistance (RCA) – they cannot get both.
Since the Wilson-Fish projects are funded with the RMA and RCA funds, refugees served under a Wilson-Fish project cannot also utilize Medicaid and TANF – it would be redundant funding.
Medicaid expansion is particularly relevant to where federal contractors are looking to increase refugee placement. That’s because under Obamacare, states were given the option to make Medicaid available to groups not currently eligible for it. This could include, for example, lowering the income eligibility. And because many refugees start out in lower or minimum wage jobs, more could potentially qualify for Medicaid.
The 2014 Dept. of Health and Human Services briefing titled “Key Indicators for Refugee Placement” included information about which states have expanded or are considering expanding Medicaid under Obamacare:
“One major factor that may affect placement is the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Accordingly, this year’s data has incorporated information on health access determinants including updates on states that plan to expand Medicaid during the final implementation phase of ACA, and states that have ruled Medicaid expansion out.”
Refugee contractors have publicly stated that they will focus more and more of the future refugees placements in those states where there is Medicaid expansion.
_________
Footnote from paragraph one: (1) Only refugees who are NOT eligible for their state’s Medicaid program can receive the 8 months of federal medical assistance funds. The federal money stops if a refugee becomes eligible for their state’s Medicaid program even if the full 8 months have not elapsed.
Editor: Note that this post is archived in our category ‘where to find information.‘ Check it out if you are trying to educate yourself on refugee resettlement and immigration generally. And, don’t forget to see our fact sheet which every day recently has been our top post (follow top posts in our right hand sidebar)!
