The accompanying photo showed newcomers learning the fine points of shoveling snow at an eight-week class presented [...]]]>
The accompanying photo showed newcomers learning the fine points of shoveling snow at an eight-week class presented by the International Institute of Minnesota:
The article gives limited information about the Institute, noting that it has “resettled nearly 25,000 refugees in its centurylong history.”
However a glance at the internet shows that the nonprofit is expanding substantially:
As refugee debate intensifies, International Institute of Minnesota plans $12 million expansion, St. Paul Pioneer Press, January 13, 2020
ST. PAUL — At a time when nursing homes and assisted living facilities are scrambling to find employees who can balance a strong work ethic with sensitivity to the needs of vulnerable adults, Jane Graupman believes she has just the solution.
In a word? Refugees. She wants more of them, and she wants to make more room for them and other immigrants in her crowded classrooms. . . .
Meanwhile, technology has a different idea for patient care in nursing homes, namely robots, which are becoming smarter and more capable all the time. So America won’t be needing low-skilled foreigners for that job either.
One gets the impression that refugee resettlement can be a profitable endeavor. The most recent 990 report for the Institute available is for the year ending September 30, 2018, and it shows Executive Director Graupman getting a salary of $106,769. That’s probably decent money in Minnesota. Also interesting is that “government grants” from the taxpayers amounted to $2,294,910.
So uneducated, culturally ignorant immigrants and refugees can be quite enriching for diversity-seeking nonprofits.
]]>‘Life in Minnesota’ class: Shoveling, walking on ice and the nuances of ‘Nice’, Star Tribune, February 15, 2020
The eight-week cultural orientation class helps immigrants and temporary residents navigate myriad American systems — legal, education, health care — and more.
Dorcas Zirirane arrived at a “Life in Minnesota” class in St. Paul carrying her 1-year-old granddaughter on her back in a colorful cloth sling, speaking to her in Swahili. Zirirane was wearing a long skirt with a bold, vibrant pattern traditional to the Democratic Republic of Congo, from which she’d fled as a refugee.
But she’d already adapted her wardrobe to her new home. Zirirane raised the hem of her thin cotton skirt to reveal a pair of thick leggings.
Zirirane was one of about 20 students attending the International Institute of Minnesota’s eight-week cultural orientation class, which helps immigrants and temporary residents navigate myriad American systems — legal, education, health care — and more.
Instructor Sara Skinner also supplements the basic curriculum for refugees with skills specific to the state. Many are related to the cold: how to dress for winter, do the “penguin shuffle” when walking on ice, shovel snow correctly.
Others involve a more figurative cool: understanding Minnesotans’ reserve and interpreting the notorious “Minnesota Nice.”
This morning’s lesson was on health. Midway through it, Skinner stressed the importance of protecting your skin from the cold, dry air. “If you put Vaseline in your nose at night when you go to sleep that will help your nose not to bleed,” she offered.
The Swahili and Karenni interpreters did their best to translate a phrase that likely left those from warmer climes wondering what they were doing in this bone-chilling land of nasal-greasers.
Fear of freezing
The number of refugees coming to Minnesota has plummeted since President Donald Trump dramatically reduced the national cap on refugees (18,000 this year, down from 110,000 during Obama’s final year in office). Still, the state has a long tradition of welcoming newcomers and ranks high in its number of refugees resettled per capita.
Of the nearly 900 refugees who arrived in Minnesota in 2019, those from Myanmar were most numerous, followed by Democratic Republic of Congo and Ukraine. But a typical “Life in Minnesota” class includes students from countries all over the globe: China, Burundi, Rwanda and Portugal among them.
Helping new Americans achieve self-sufficiency remains a primary focus of the institute, which has resettled nearly 25,000 refugees in its centurylong history. It is one of five resettlement groups in the state. (Continues)
In fact, the only thing that has changed is that Trump increased freedom for local communities to opt out of refugee resettlement if they wish.
The change shows the [...]]]>
In fact, the only thing that has changed is that Trump increased freedom for local communities to opt out of refugee resettlement if they wish.
The change shows the elite Rescue Project is no longer the sacred cow it once was. Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently announced that his state will no longer accept refugees after taking in 10 percent of America’s total for the last decade. (Breitbart News: Texas Governor Greg Abbott First in U.S. to Halt Refugee Flow into His State).
This declaration followed the odd news earlier in January that 18 Republican governors requested more refugees even though the foreigners cost taxpayers $1.8 billion annually. Go figure.
Interestingly, the great majority of the asylum seekers have turned out to have fake claims: their acceptance rate has fallen to less than one percent. So the already squishy category of Victim immigrants has shown itself to be worthy of suspicion among Americans who are paying attention.
Plus, on a planet approaching 8 billion residents, America cannot be the welfare office for all the needy. People need to stay home and work for reform, as once was the norm before cell-phones and easy transit.
The Times should be ashamed of an article where the city being discussed is misspelled once (Bismark!) and it reports Trump said “many refugees are criminals” which is not accurate — though he may have said “some” which is certainly true.
]]>North Dakota was an immigrant haven — until Trump was elected, Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2020
BISMARCK, N.D. — For decades, this conservative, predominantly white capital city has played host to refugees from around the world.
Immigrants greet shoppers at Walmart, process beef at the Cloverdale Foods plant, run the register at Arbys, clean the Holiday Inn and drive for Uber.
Nobody used to pay them much mind.
“Life was getting better,” said 20-year-old Tresor Mugwaneza, who settled here four years ago after fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and eventually enrolled at the University of Mary.
Things started to change with the 2016 election of President Trump, who has suggested that many refugees are criminals and has extolled his belief in putting “America first” by drastically reducing the number allowed to enter the United States.
The rhetoric has trickled down from Washington into smaller, quieter parts of the nation, as citizens and local politicians embrace it and places such as Bismark start to reassess their relationship with the newcomers.
Now, because of a federal policy announced in September, the 49 states and 600 counties that have welcomed refugees — only Wyoming has never taken part in federal resettlement efforts — each have the power to decide whether to continue doing so.
Just a year ago, the biggest controversy in Bismarck — home to most of the 95,000 people in Burleigh County — was whether to allow the construction of a wind farm. That was nothing compared to the debate that erupted over immigrants.
Suddenly, on the cusp of winter, when life quiets down and temperatures may stay below zero for days at a time, it seemed refugees were all that residents could talk about.
“These people come and destroy everything they touch,” said a post on a local Facebook group, Bismarck’s People Reporting News, which gained thousands of members and became an outlet for concern as well as fear and misinformation.
The mayor, Steve Bakken, became a leading proponent of closing the door on more refugees, arguing that homeless veterans need help more than those fleeing war on another continent.
“If we can’t meet the needs of people here, why bring new ones in?” he said in an interview. (Continues)
But just being a poor human on earth is not enough to qualify for asylum in the US. In fact, [...]]]>
But just being a poor human on earth is not enough to qualify for asylum in the US. In fact, the acceptance rate for asylum seekers fell to less than one percent over the last year under the current tightened rules.
Refugee resettlement costs the taxpayers $1.8 billion annually, according to a study published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2018. So less is better for everyone, particularly in the home countries which could benefit greatly from reformist movements rather than citizens who dream of escaping rather than fixing the place.
Tucker Carlson recently discussed the Republican governors who succumbed to the pleas of resettlement moochers and actually have requested more refugees for their states — bad craziness!
Spare Audio:
TUCKER CARLSON: If you remember that far back, during President Barack Obama’s second term, Republican leaders in the Congress made a big show of opposing the Obama administration’s refugee policy. Obama wanted to settle tens of thousands of refugees who had fled Syria’s civil war in the United States, and at the time 25 Republican governors demanded the right to keep them out. Now the left accused them of Racism! of course but there are good reasons to take the position they did.
For example, properly vetting refugees is really hard, often it’s impossible. Some of the refugees, they pointed out, might not even be Syrian. That was true for sure in Europe with the refugees. Some of them might be Islamic extremists, but terrorism was not the only worry they had.
America’s middle class is in decline. We already have more than 20 million illegal immigrants living here. The last thing many struggling communities need is more low skilled migrants who may be great people but need a lot — stress the schools and the social programs, while not fully integrated.
That’s just true, and anyone who lives in a community where it’s happened will tell you that it’s true.
As with illegal immigration, a long-term agenda of refugee resettlement is to bring in future Democratic voters — obviously — so before she became the most anti-American member of Congress, Ilhan Omar was a refugee.
So at the time the Republican governors got their wish, and President Trump won the 2016 election. In 2019 he issued an executive order allowing cities and states to opt out of refugee resettlement —that’s the last time we checked in on this story.
Here’s the amazing part — for some reason no Republican governors are taking advantage of that. Instead — you probably didn’t read this in the New York Times — but 18 Republican governors have explicitly requested that more refugees be sent to their states.
Have their voters demanded this? No, so what’s going on here?
Ned Ryun is the founder of American Majority and author of Restoring our Republic. He joins us tonight. So Ned, I don’t think there’s any evidence that Republican voters in the states have been begging their Republican governors to move more refugees in, so why are these governors literally asking the federal government to do this?
NED RYUN: This is unreal, Tucker. I mean again you pointed out that Trump gave them a strong backstop back in September and said you can opt out of this with his executive order and now you have these 18 Republican governors saying no, we want more, and they’re saying well we’re following our hearts, this is Christian charity in action.
I got to say this, Tucker, as a active devout evangelical Christian, refugee resettlement has nothing to do with Christianity and has everything to do with the immoral behavior of these governors and quite frankly a perverse incentive for these government funded charities that are acting as refugee contractors, grifting off the American taxpayer.
Michelle Malkin’s written about some of this, but the US State Department is paying these refugee contractors over $2100 per refugee of which they get to keep 45 percent, and then they’re doing this this campaign on these governors saying you have to put your Christian charity into action, and in an act of cowardice, most of these governors from red states are giving in to this. (Continues)
Near the end of the interview, Tucker said of the governors, “I really wish we had run their names on the screen” — although the televised map provides some hints.
Helpfully, Breitbart listed the governors in an article, so feel free to contact one or all with your reaction regarding their ill-considered generosity:
]]>The List: 17 GOP Governors Approve More Refugees for their States, Breitbart.com, January 3, 2020
A total of 17 Republican governors thus far have approved more refugee resettlement for their states, along with five Democrat governors who govern red states.
For Fiscal Year 2020, President Donald Trump will continue cutting refugee admissions by reducing former President Barack Obama’s refugee inflow by at least 80 percent. This reduction would mean a maximum of 18,000 refugees can be resettled in the U.S. between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020. This is merely a numerical limit and not a goal federal officials are supposed to reach.
Coupled with the refugee reduction, Trump signed an executive order that gives localities, counties, and states veto power over whether they want to resettle refugees in their communities.
To date, these Republican governors in 17 states have asked the Trump administration to continue resettling refugees in their states:
- Mike DeWine of Ohio
- Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas
- Kim Reynolds of Iowa
- Charlie Baker of Massachusetts
- Gary Herbert of Utah
- Doug Burgum of North Dakota
- Chris Sununu of New Hampshire
- Doug Ducey of Arizona
- Eric Holcomb of Indiana
- Bill Lee of Tennessee
- Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma
- Pete Ricketts of Nebraska
- Kristi Noem of South Dakota
- Jim Justice of West Virginia
- Mike Parson of Missouri
- Brad Little of Idaho
- Larry Hogan of Maryland
(Article continues)
Below, the newsprint headline for the photo below is ‘Becoming Americans,’ after a 15,000-mile journey.
[...]]]>Below, the newsprint headline for the photo below is ‘Becoming Americans,’ after a 15,000-mile journey.
The star of today’s story is Ali Reza Ataie, a 22-year-old citizen of Afghanistan who appears able-bodied yet apparently didn’t want to do the messy work of defending freedom in his homeland. An Afghan could get hurt and besides, there are still US soldiers there carrying the load. Better for Ali to find a soft touch somewhere, preferably in stupid-generous America.
As the Post points out, President Trump didn’t want Ali or his crew moving in, but was forced into it by pre-existing diplomacy. Obama filled the last months of his presidency with jamming in lots of muslims with little screening for jihad tendencies. The batch discussed in the article are the result of Obama’s muslim machinations.
Naturally the Post thinks all the foreign newbies are wonderful, with no bad apples among them. But we know that sort of supposition can be ill-informed. Let’s hope America is lucky for once.
The Washington Post story was reprinted by the Houston Chronicle, linked below:
]]>‘Becoming Americans,’ after a 15,000-mile journey, Washington Post, October 12, 2019
GRAPEVINE, Texas – On the day that President Donald Trump slashed refugee admissions to their lowest level in four decades, the arrival of a dazed traveler at Dallas’ international airport last month offered a quiet rebuke.
The newcomer was walking the final steps of an improbable, 15,000-mile odyssey. There to greet him were four others who had followed the same epic path to an American life, along with a native-born citizen clutching a hand-drawn, red-and-blue sign: “Welcome to Texas!”
None would have been there had Trump had his way.
In a nearly three-year campaign that has encompassed walls, travel bans and the forced separation of children from their parents, the Trump administration has reshaped vast tracts of the U.S. government’s approach toward refugees and immigration.
But in one of his first attempts to bend policy to his will – an effort to block the arrival of refugees who had been detained by the Australian government on remote South Pacific islands — Trump lost.
“I guarantee you they are bad,” the president said during a testy exchange with the Australian prime minister a week after his inauguration. “That is why they are in prison.”
Now more than 600 of them are in the United States, living freely from California to Georgia and dozens of places in between.
After enduring years locked up by Australia for seeking asylum, they are making the most of their second chance — finding jobs, honing their English and putting down roots in a country half a world away from the one they had intended to reach.
To refugee advocates, their largely successful integration in their new land proves that the president’s loss has been the country’s gain.
[. . .]
As Barack Obama’s presidency came to an end in late 2016, and as the global population of displaced people swelled to record numbers, the administration was looking for ways to accept more refugees. It also wanted to encourage other nations to do the same.
[Refugee point person Anne] Richard struck a deal with the Australians that fall that was intended to accomplish both: The United States would accept up to 1,250 refugees from Nauru and Manus if the Australians took in more people from other parts of the globe. (Continues)
There are probably billions of hard-luck stories on planet earth, and if America increasingly becomes seen as the world’s welfare office, the demands for admittance will never end. It seems that way already, for example when thousands of Africans are coming here to steal a better life rather than closer-to-them Europe.
Below, Trump advisor Stephen Miller is a popular target for immigration maximalists in the press.
There’s apparently no net reduction in aliens contemplated, just a category readjustment: the Times article notes that “because of a recent surge of asylum seekers at the southwestern border, there was less of a need for the United States to accept refugees from abroad.”
A real reduction in the rescue project would be a plus for the world. The refugee/asylum complex in fact does little to reduce the total amount of suffering on a planet with over 7.7 billion residents, while if more people stayed home and fought for reform, some genuine progress might be made.
Much of official Washington sees no problem with surrendering sovereignty in order to be the planet’s free rescue service. In one example, Senator Rubio suggested recently that the estimated 60,000 Bahamians living in the US be allowed to bring their relatives here. Hurricane Dorian was devastating, no question, but the Bahamas was formerly a British colony until it became a member of the Commonwealth in 1973; it has no political or historical connection to the US at all. There is no reason why we should rescue a substantial portion of its population of over 390,000 persons.
The Times article was reprinted in the link following:
]]>Trump Administration Considers a Drastic Cut in Refugees Allowed to Enter U.S., New York Times, September 6, 2019
WASHINGTON — The White House is considering a plan that would keep most refugees who are fleeing war, persecution and famine out of the United States, significantly cutting back a decades-old program, according to current and former administration officials.
One option that top officials are weighing would cut refugee admissions by half or more, to 10,000 to 15,000 people, but reserve most of those spots for people from a few countries or from groups with special status, such as Iraqis and Afghans who work alongside American troops, diplomats and intelligence operatives abroad. Another option, proposed by a top administration official, would reduce refugee admissions to zero, while leaving the president with the ability to admit some in an emergency.
Both options would all but end the United States’ status as a leader in accepting refugees from around the world.
The issue is expected to come to a head on Tuesday, when White House officials plan to convene a high-level meeting to discuss the annual number of refugee admissions for the coming year, as determined by President Trump.
“At a time when the number of refugees is at the highest level in recorded history, the United States has abandoned world leadership in resettling vulnerable people in need of protection,” said Eric Schwartz, the president of Refugees International. “The result is a world that is less compassionate and less able to deal with future humanitarian challenges.”
For two years, Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top immigration adviser, has used his considerable influence in the West Wing to reduce the refugee ceiling to its lowest levels in history, capping the program at 30,000 this year. That is a more than 70 percent cut from its level when President Barack Obama left office.
The move has been part of Mr. Trump’s broader effort to reduce the number of documented and undocumented immigrants entering the United States, including numerous restrictions on asylum seekers, who, like refugees, are fleeing persecution but cross into the United States over the border with Mexico or Canada.
Now, Mr. Miller and allies from the White House whom he placed at the Departments of State and Homeland Security are pushing aggressively to shrink the program even further, according to one senior official involved in the discussions and several former officials briefed on them, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail the private deliberations.
White House officials did not respond to a request for comment.
John Zadrozny, a top official at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, made the argument for simply lowering the ceiling to zero, a stance that was first reported by Politico. Others have suggested providing “carveouts” for certain countries or populations, such as the Iraqis and Afghans, whose work on behalf of the American government put both them and their families at risk, making them eligible for special status to come to the United States through the refugee program. (Continues)
At the one-minute point of the video report, Norah O’Donnell observed, “We have the most refugees in the world since World War Two,” and Malala concurred. [...]]]>
At the one-minute point of the video report, Norah O’Donnell observed, “We have the most refugees in the world since World War Two,” and Malala concurred. Of course, who does the count and who qualifies can change the number considerably, although the total in 1945 seems to be around 60 million displaced people when a lot of Europe was rubble.
But the world’s population is now more than triple what it was in 1945: around 2.5 billion then versus nearly 7.7 billion today. That fact alone should change the conversation about the planetary rescue project, but it hasn’t. Also keep in mind that most of the population growth occurs in poor nations, as shown by the graph below.
In addition, travel is far easier now than it was in the middle of the last century, so nearly all of the caravansters and other such from points south are economic migrants, trained by open borders leftists to tell BS stories that would qualify the invaders for asylum and a “better life” of maximum free stuff provided by US taxpayers.
To be clear, Malala Yousafzai is a genuine refugee, who was shot by the Pakistan Taliban when she was just 14 because of advocating education for women and girls. But it’s disappointing to hear her complain about America’s meanness toward migrants when the US is the most generous nation on earth in that regard — where the immigrant population has doubled since 1990, tripled since 1980 and quadrupled since 1970.
Here’s more from CBS about Malala’s appearance:
]]>Malala Yousafzai amplifies voices of refugee girls in new book, “We Are Displaced”, CBS News, January 7, 2019
Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai has a new book highlighting the stories of young women impacted by global immigration policies. In “We Are Displaced: My Journey and Stories From Refugee Girls Around the World,” she not only tells her own story of displacement after being shot and nearly killed by the Taliban in her home country of Pakistan, but also the stories of other displaced women she’s met.
“Oftentimes when we hear about refugees we hear about them in figures and numbers. We hear about them, but we never hear from them. We never hear what they want to say, what their dreams are, their aspirations are,” Yousafzai said Monday on “CBS This Morning.”
The Oxford University student said she hopes people will learn more about refugees by hearing from them.
“For most of these girls, most of these women and children around the world who are going through conflicts right now, going through wars right now, their last choice is to become refugees, but that’s often the only choice to survive,” Yousafzai said. “And they want, you know, to live in a peaceful place. They want to have a home. They want to have a future for their children. And that’s often the things that we don’t hear. And I think that’s something that I want people to understand and that I want to deliver to this world.” (Continues)
Yet he was accepted as a refugee by the Obama administration in 2014 and brought to this country where [...]]]>
Yet he was accepted as a refugee by the Obama administration in 2014 and brought to this country where he was arrested on Wednesday in Sacramento for the murder of an Iraqi police officer. The case shows how dangerous it is for Washington to continue its rescue projects in today’s violent world.
President Trump implemented a travel ban early in his Presidency because he recognized the inadequacy of the vetting procedures for foreigners from certain backward or war-torn countries.
Refugees have added up. According to a Pew report last year, about 3 million refugees have been deposited in the US since Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980.
Omar Ameen, shown below, is being returned to Iraq to stand trial for murder.
Refugee resettlement has not been a popular program: a Pew poll published in October 2016 found 54 percent of responders said that other nations should sort out their own problems, and the US therefore did not have a responsibility to admit refugees from Syria and similar regions.
]]>US officials: Ex-ISIS fighter entered US as refugee, Associated Press, August 16, 2018
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – An Iraqi man accused of killing for the Islamic State entered the U.S. as a refugee after claiming to be a victim of terrorism, in a case drawing attention amid the Trump administration’s criticism of the resettlement program’s vetting process.
Omar Abdulsattar Ameen, 45, was arrested in California on Wednesday and will be extradited to Iraq under a treaty with that nation, U.S. officials said. He made his first appearance in federal court in Sacramento after his arrest at an apartment building in the state capital.
Ameen left Iraq and fled in 2012 to Turkey, where he applied to be accepted as a refugee to the U.S., according to court documents.
He was granted that status in June 2014. That same month, prosecutors say he returned to Iraq, where he killed a police officer in the town of Rawah after it fell to the Islamic State. Five months later, Ameen traveled to the United States to be resettled as a refugee.
Ameen was arrested by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force based on a warrant issued in May by an Iraqi federal court in Baghdad. Ameen could face execution for the “organized killing by an armed group,” according to Iraqi documents filed in U.S. federal court.
Benjamin Galloway, one of Ameen’s public defenders, said he had just 10 minutes to meet with his client prior to his initial court appearance, and attorneys hadn’t decided whether to contest that Ameen is the man wanted by Iraqi authorities.
Ameen did not disclose his membership in two terrorist groups when he later applied for a green card in the United States, officials said.
The Trump administration has sharply criticized the Obama-era resettlement program for not doing enough to keep out terrorists. (Continues)
The subject family is not surviving financially. Khisrow Jan, the father and breadwinner, is working 12 hours a day as an Uber driver which doesn’t pay the rent of $1850 for a two-bedroom apartment in Antioch. He has a stay-at-home wife and four kids to support, so the expenses won’t be decreasing any time soon. The agency that placed the family in one of America’s most expensive areas did them no favors.
But the story does provide the dose of emotional diversity that many media outlets crave. It is a reprint from CalMatters.org, a liberal news site.
]]>Fleeing war-torn homes for crippling rents—California housing costs creating harsh reality for refugees, CalMatters.org, July 19, 2018
Khisrow Jan has $800 in the bank. Rent is $1,850, and was due four days ago. He’s late with his payment—again.
While Jan gets ready for work—driving an Uber in San Francisco for the next 12 hours — his 4-year-old daughter Shukula barricades the front door of their two-bedroom apartment in Antioch, a far-flung Bay Area suburb east of Oakland.
“I need to work. Need to make some money,” Jan, 34, playfully tells his daughter.
“No, you cannot,” replies Shukula, an impish smile spreading across her face.
“Look buddy,” says Jan. “I got to go, get some money, and buy you a dress.”
That satisfies Shukula. She and the rest of Jan’s family—9-year-old Sameera, 5-year old Mirwais, and 9-month-old Wais, carried by his mother—follow Jan out to his car. He’ll be back at 2 or 3 a.m., long after his kids have fallen asleep.
When Jan and his family fled Afghanistan in 2015, he knew adjusting to a new life in California wasn’t going to be easy. His wife speaks very little English, and even after working as an interpreter with U.S. troops, his job prospects were limited.
But he never dreamed California was going to be this expensive.
The state’s skyrocketing housing costs have created a harsh new reality for refugees on the ground, many of whom are going to extraordinary lengths just to afford rent. The cost of living has increased so much in recent years that refugee resettlement agencies working in California are rethinking their strategies for relocating clients—and whether the state is a good fit for some refugees in the first place.
“I heard a lot about California out there in Afghanistan,” says Jan, who embedded with American soldiers from the Bay Area and other parts of the state. “They were saying California is nice. But trust me, I didn’t know anything about the rent and all these bills.”
California has long been a landing spot for refugees like Jan. Waves of Vietnamese, Iranian, Central American and other immigrants have resettled here over the past few decades, escaping persecution and turmoil in their home countries. More than 700,000 refugees have come to California since the mid 1970’s, including more than 30,000 in the last five years, according to state statistics.
(Continues)
Refugees add up. Pew Research noted earlier this year that around three [...]]]>
Refugees add up. Pew Research noted earlier this year that around three million refugees have been deposited in the US since Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980. And refugees are diverse, like the 16,370 Congolese admitted in fiscal 2016 along with 39,000 Muslims the same year.
An annual chart beginning with 2002 shows an upward drift:
In addition, the refugee program is not popular among registered voters. A Pew poll taken last October found 54 percent of responders said that other nations should sort out their own problems, and the US therefore did not have a responsibility to admit refugees from Syria and similar regions.
The New York Times story was reprinted in the Gulf News (located in Dubai, United Arab Emirates) without any annoying limits. So click away:
]]>US may cut refugee limit by more than half, GulfNews.com (NYTimes story), September 13, 2017
President Donald Trump promised during his 2016 campaign to deny admittance to refugees who posed a terrorist threat
WASHINGTON: The Trump administration is considering reducing the number of refugees admitted to the country over the next year to below 50,000, according to current and former government officials familiar with the discussions, the lowest number since at least 1980.
President Donald Trump promised during his 2016 campaign to deny admittance to refugees who posed a terrorist threat. In his first days in office he took steps to radically reduce the program that resettles refugees in US cities and towns, capping the number admitted at 50,000 as part of his executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries. That was fewer than half the 110,000 refugees President Barack Obama said should be admitted in 2016.
But in recent weeks, as the deadline approached for Trump to issue the annual determination for refugee admissions required by the Refugee Act of 1980, some inside the White House — led by Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior adviser for policy — have pressed to set the ceiling even lower.
The issue has created an intense debate within the administration, with Miller and some officials at the Department of Homeland Security citing security concerns and limited resources as grounds for deeply cutting the number of admissions, and officials at the National Security Council, the State Department and the Department of Defence opposing a precipitous drop.
No final decision has been made, according to the officials, but as the issue is being debated, the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the administration to bar almost any refugees from entering the country while it considers challenges to the travel ban order. The court will hear arguments in the case next month.
Spokesmen at the White House and the departments of Homeland Security and State declined to discuss an annual figure, noting that it had not yet been finalised. By law, the president must consult with Congress and make a decision by the start of each fiscal year, October 1, on the refugee ceiling.
(Continues)
There is a computer program that estimates age from appearance, and many of the kiddies are determined to be adults. [...]]]>
There is a computer program that estimates age from appearance, and many of the kiddies are determined to be adults. And in most cases, simple eyeballing works well enough to determine the frauds looking to kill infidels or mooch welfare benefits in Europe. See the Daily Mail’s report, “How old are they really? Damning verdict of face recognition software on ‘child’ migrants.”
And why do the Brits have to admit illegal alien Middle Eastern Muslims anyway? Wasn’t BREXIT largely about immigration control and reclaiming national sovereignty?
Today’s horror story concerns a foster family who thought they were getting a 12-year-old orphan boy from Afghanistan but ended up with an eventual death threat from an adult jihad after he had lived with the welcoming parents and their children.
]]>Migrant foster mum reveals her horror at discovering ’12-year-old refugee’ in her care is actually a 21-year-old Jihadi, The Sun (UK), October 22, 2016
Kind-hearted Rosie became suspicious when she noticed Afghan lad was ‘hairy’ and was ‘adept at firing rifle’
A FOSTER mum who took in a child refugee has told of her horror after discovering he was a 21-year-old jihadi.
Kind-hearted Rosie welcomed Jamal into her family after social workers said he was a 12-year-old orphan who had fled Afghanistan.
But she became suspicious when she noticed how hairy he was, and how adept he was at firing a rifle.
Jamal was rumbled when a dentist estimated he was a decade older than claimed.Taliban material and child abuse images were later found on his mobile.
The blunder comes after migrants claiming to be children were bussed to the UK from Calais’ Jungle camp. It is feared terrorists could use the same ruse.
Rosie, whose full name we are hiding to protect her from reprisals, said: “Adults are playing the system. It’s putting families like mine and society as a whole at risk.
“I don’t see anything wrong with dental and bone density checks. Some say they are intrusive and degrading. But having a man in your home who’s pretending to be a child is far more intrusive.”
When Rosie and husband Pete, 57, took in Jamal they all switched to halal meat.
She said: “He looked thin and I thought, ‘Bless him’. He was so humble, polite.”
He roomed with a boy, aged 13. Two girls, 12 and 14, were also in the house.
Alarm bells rang when the family went swimming and Rosie’s 13-year-old commented on how hairy he was.
At a climbing centre he shimmied up ropes with ease, and at a shooting range he stripped a gun before firing it.
On a bus to college he was told to get off by a driver who didn’t believe he was 16. Rosie, who lives in the South East, said: “It’s ridiculous how everybody else could see it but not the social workers.”
Jamal’s behaviour worsened. He put the 13-year-old in expert holds, demanded cash and got calls from unknown numbers.
One day he claimed he couldn’t pray because there were too many posters on his wall. The interpreter told him, “What do you mean? Allah doesn’t mind?”
His last words to Rosie were: “I’ll kill you and I know where your children are.”
She added: “I can’t say he was a terrorist but I do think he came from a training camp. He was a great actor.
“Every day I check the car, and that all the house windows are shut. I panic because I know he knows our routine.”
Since being arrested for an alleged assault, Jamal has been turned down for asylum but is appealing.
MP David Davies, who is demanding stronger checks, said: “If we don’t do this then we will see men in their 20s placed with vulnerable children in foster care and in classrooms.”