But a big problem, says the General Accounting Office , is that neither the US State Department or the Office of Refugee Resettlement in HHS are doing much to track the outcomes of those admitted to the US from Iraq and Afghanistan who supposedly worked for us as interpreters.
I told youhere recentlythat the number admitted to the US from those two violent countries is pushing 70,000 in the last ten years.
As Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders they are treated as full-fledged refugees with all the welfare benefits other refugees receive.
We have been told that the resettlement contractors*** are relying on these paying clients to keep federal dollars flowing to their budgets as the refugee flow they hoped for is not materializing.
Some members of Congress must have requested this GAO study because problems are obviously brewing with this portion of our ‘welcome’ to Middle Eastern Muslims. I did not read the whole report, here, but it seems that there are some pretty disillusioned SIVs who thought they would have good jobs and decent housing when they got here.
Here are a few snips from the summary:
Not exactly a bombshell title:
What GAO Found
Since fiscal year 2011, about [about?—ed] 13,000 Afghan and Iraqi nationals (excluding family members) have resettled in the United States under special immigrant visas (SIV), but limited data on their outcomes are available from the Department of State (State) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). State collects data on SIV holders’ resettlement outcomes once—90 days after they arrive. GAO’s analysis of State’s data from October 2010 through December 2016 showed that the majority of principal SIV holders—those who worked for the U.S. government—were unemployed at 90 days, including those reporting high levels of education and spoken English.
Stakeholders [must be referring to the resettlement contractors—ed] GAO interviewed reported several resettlement challenges, including capacity issues in handling large numbers of SIV holders, difficulties finding skilled employment, and SIV holders’ high expectations.
Officials from local resettlement agencies in Northern Virginia reported capacity challenges for their agencies and the community due to the large increase of SIV holders. In almost all of GAO’s focus groups with principal SIV holders, participants expressed frustration at the need to take low-skilled jobs because they expected that their education and prior work experience would lead to skilled work. [You can bet they aren’t going to the slaughterhouse jobs where contractors like to place those in their care.—-ed]
State and HHS have taken steps to address some resettlement challenges. For example, in 2017 State placed restrictions on where SIV holders could resettle and HHS announced a new grant to support career development programs for SIV holders, refugees, and others.
In addition, State provides information to prospective SIV holders about resettlement. However, the information is general, and lacks detail on key issues such as housing affordability, employment, and available government assistance. Providing such specifics could lead to more informed decisions by SIV holders on where to resettle and help them more quickly adapt to potential challenges once in the United States. [I don’t think that GAO knows that the SIVs original resettlement location is not chosen by the refugees, but by the State Department in conjunction with contractors*** as they bid for bodies (aka paying clients).—ed]
In light of so many disillusioned and unemployed SIVs, I sure hope that someone is reporting that news to others in the pipeline on their way to America!
I wondered if GAO is downplaying the numbers on purpose…. were they as shocked as we are to find these enormous numbers?
In the summary, GAO talks about 13,000 SIVs since 2011, excluding family members, but in the full report they describe the real numbers we have placed in your towns and cities.
And, rather than saying “over 60,000”, they could have said closer to 70,000! As Ireported early this month, using data readily available at the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center (Wrapsnet), we admitted from FY2008-right up to my post on March 8th, the numbers as follows:
Total to March 8th: 67,442
When I went to the full report they say this (below) on Page 1, but once again use the word “about.” They do clarify one point: “about 20,000” are the people who worked for us or on behalf of us, the remaining, over 40,000! are their family members.
Afghan and Iraqi nationals who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Afghanistan or Iraq and have experienced ongoing serious threats as a consequence of such employment, or who worked directly with the U.S. Armed Forces or under chief of mission authority as a translator or interpreter, may apply for a special immigrant visa (SIV) to the United States.
Upon securing a visa, the principal SIV holder and his or her eligible dependents may resettle in the United States and are granted lawful permanent resident status upon admission into the United States. Since fiscal year 2008, over 60,000 individuals—about 20,000 principal SIV holders and their families—have been admitted under SIVs and received federal resettlement assistance upon arrival.
SIV holders are authorized to receive resettlement assistance from the Departments of State (State) and Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as federal public benefits, to the same extent and for the same periods of time as refugees.
***These are the nine federal contractors working with the US State Department to place the SIVs and their families. Although GAO seems to have been fixated on how poorly the State Department and ORR are keeping track of the SIVs and their progress toward assimilation, it seems to me that the contractors should come in for more blame if their charges are doing so poorly.
The number in parenthesis is the percentage of the nine VOLAGs’ income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the refugees, line them up with jobs, and get them signed up for their services! From most recent accounting, here.
And, she continues to defend her decision to admit a million or so, mostly fake, refugees to the country. I hope the historians of Western Civilization out there are writing this down (especially since it will be Muslim historians writing in the next century if this keeps up).
She’s been chancellor of Germany for 12 years, reduced to a caretaker for the past six months until she could form a new government. Today (March 21), Angela Merkel gave the first speech of her latest term to parliament, addressing the controversial topic of migrants and their place in German society.
The chancellor directly contradicted her new interior minister—an old foe when it comes to the topic of refugees—Horst Seehofer, leader of the Christian Social Union. Seehofer sparked a furor last week when he told the Bild newspaper that “Islam does not belong in Germany.”
“There is no question that our country is historically Christian and Jewish,” Merkel said.“It is also true that Islam has in the meanwhile become part of Germany.” She acknowledged, however, that some Germans find that hard to accept.
Merkel said the atmosphere in Germany had become “polarized,” and the refugee crisis of recent years had challenged the country “in an unprecedented way.”She noted that Turkish and Italian immigrants had played a vital role in the rebuilding of post-war Germany and that their families were part of mainstream life.
About 4.5 million Muslims live in Germany, and the majority rejects radicalism, the chancellor said.
Unusually for Merkel, she admitted that in retrospect, her initial hope that the chaos of the war in Syria wouldn’t harm Germany was naïve. It soon became clear that the country wasn’t prepared for an influx of displaced people, she said, describing the taking in of more than a million refugees was a necessary “humanitarian exception.”
When I saw this—one more story on Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ and the slowdown in refugee arrivals to America, it was just one more ‘ho-hum’—so what else is new.
But, like most of the stories a little nugget pops out that gives me a better picture of how the UN and the US State Department are changing America. Only rarely do I see stories that tell us where other African blacks experiencing hatred from black South Africans are moving to. This is one of those where we see the pipeline start to finish!
Of course they can’t call it racism when its black vs. black, so for those Somalis who arrived in South Africa as illegal aliens and were transformed into refugees for your towns and cities by the thousands, they say it is xenophobia that is responsible for their ticket to America.
The story is about Mankato, MN a city that went from a 19% poverty level in 2000 to a 26% in 2015 being resettled with Somalis by the Minnesota Council of Churches(a Subcontractor of Church World Service).
That (left) is the CWS logo in the picture below…..
…. and it is Church World Servicethat is paid gobs of taxpayer dollars to run the resettlement program for the US State Department out of Kenya and out of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Hereis the Mankato Free Press falling for the big boo-hoo story on the drop in number of Somalis arriving in that southern Minnesota city.
MANKATO — Refugee resettlement in the Mankato area has slowed over the past year amid President Donald Trump’s attempts to ban travelers from certain Muslim-majority countries.
The local drop is a reflection of what’s happened statewide and nationwide, adding further uncertainty for refugees already in the middle of lengthy resettlement processes.
Somali refugees and their families awaiting reunification in Mankato have been most impacted by the ban.
Ben Walen, director of refugee services with the Minnesota Council of Churches, said his organization knows of 16 individuals who would’ve likely settled in Mankato before September 2018 if the ban never happened. Now he doesn’t expect them to arrive in Minnesota before the end of the year. And an arrival next year is anyone’s guess.
Then this is what I found most informative. Minnesota Council of Churches employee, Habiba Rashid, came to Minnesota as a refugee from xenophobia in South Africa (aka the “Rainbow Nation”). Then she got her family in through chain migration.
So, as I have been saying, the white South Africans who are being persecuted by racist black South Africans should apply to the UN and Church World Service to get to the US as refugees. Head on over to that UN/Church World Service office in Johannesburg and (try to) get on the list!
After all, CWS is paid by the head to bring refugees to the US, it shouldn’t matter to them whether they are black or white, right?
Mankato Free Press continues…
Not knowing when the wait will end has been hard on families in the area, said Habiba Rashid, who settled in Mankato with her husband six years ago.
“Families here are panicking,” she said.
Now a community navigator in the council’s Mankato Area Refugee Services office, she waited six years before her resettlement here and another four afterward for her mom, dad and siblings younger than 18 to join — a timeline she describes as “lucky” compared to others. She said a term like “chain migration”is a misleading term for what should be thought of as family reunification.
Calling it chain migration also assumes refugees can just attach family members to their resettlement applications, which she said doesn’t resemble her experience or the experiences of the families she knows.
Aid organizations try to comfort them, knowing many waiting for resettlement grew so restless they turned to dangerous crossings into Europe.
If I were organizing a campaign to bring the persecuted white farmers to America, I think I would start writing to key offices at Church World Service, like these below:
Address to Church World Service. Re: Save the South African White Farmers!
See my extensive South Africa archive, here.
Don’t miss my post from yesterdaywhere Minnesotan Bob Enos tells us what a fictional Somali family is costing taxpayers of that state and nation.
A Tennessee judge this week moved to dismiss a case that would have, we believe, once and for all, settled the issue of whether the federal government can place refugees in a state and expect state taxpayers to pay for many of their needs.
But, as you read the story, remember that the Judge was dismissing the case because the US Justice Department (Jeff Sessions) asked for the case to be dismissed.
We told you back in Maythat DOJ lawyers were pushing for dismissal.
I find it stunning that AG Jeff Sessions did not see the significance of this Tenth Amendment case for, not just the refugee resettlement program, but for other programs where the feds dump financial responsibility on states that don’t want it! (And, don’t tell me he might not have known what his lawyers were doing!).
Here is Neil Munro writing atBreitbarton Tuesday:
A March 19 federal court decision requiring taxpayers in Tennessee to fund the federal government’s refugee program ignores a 2012 Supreme Court decision, says Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center.
The judge’s 43-page decision on the refugee program “is filled with appealable issues,” Thompson told a Tuesday event hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies. “Our view is that we should appeal it” at no cost to state taxpayers, said Roberts, who is the lead pro-bono lawyer in the case.
“We would relish that … this case could very well end up in the Supreme Court,” he said.
The case is important for many states because the federal refugee program forces state taxpayers and governments to fund most of the welfare, aid, and education costs of federal government’s policy of dropping refugees and their children in the states, he said. If states balk at paying the costs, the federal government can threaten to cut their share of federal funding for the Medicare program, he said.
In Tennessee, the federal Medicare program funds one-fifth of the state budget, or $7 billion per year.
The judge did not hold a hearing on the case but relied on written statements from the plaintiffs and defendants.
The judge’s decision shows the political power of the federal program, said Mark Krikorian, director of the center. “A state can check out of the refugee program, but it can never leave,” he said.
As I understand it, it is now up to the state of Tennessee to decide to take theThomas More Law Centers‘ offer to appeal the case, free of charge. (Or, will big industry—meatpackers!—prevail on the pols to drop the whole thing so their steady supply of cheap refugee labor continues to flow into the state.)
The murder happened last July—sure took a while!
On Tuesday, Leo Hohmann reported the latest at VDARE here. I’ve posted some snips, but please read the whole thing. There is more information and a whole bunch of links to guide you to even more information on this case and related cases.
The Somali immigrant Affirmative Action cop who gunned down Australian Justine Ruszczyk Damond in Minneapolis last July 15 has finally been charged with murder and manslaughter.
Justine Damond had called police at about 11:30 p.m. to report a suspected rape in progress behind her south Minneapolis apartment. A squad car responded, but as Damond approached the car in her night clothes, Officer Mohamed Noor fired across his partner, Matthew Harrity, killing her.
Freeman’s task is “daunting” because Noor has refused to cooperate with the investigation, other than to say that he was startled by an unidentified noise.
Incredibly, other police officers involved in the incident have also refused to co-operate. Both Noor and his partner Matthew Harrity had apparently “forgotten” to turn on their bodycams, a violation of procedure. A cover-up is obviously underway. [Or could it be fear of the Somali ‘community’ keeping them silent?—-ed]
Noor entered the country as a child refugee and was the first Somali to be employed by the Minneapolis Police Department’s 5th precinct. He was one of five Somalis on the entire force and the city is making a special effort to recruit Somalis as part of its affirmative-action plan.
The city’s Affirmative Action program requires it to give preferential treatment to minorities, not only those hired by the city but by all contractors awarded contracts of more than $100,000.
The hiring of Noor was supposed to show the world that male Somali refugees could grow up to become model citizens, not just terrorists.
Much more here. If there is a trial, will the mainstream media give it any serious attention? Don’t hold your breath because this case goes against everything the failing media have been pushing on the public for years.
My previous posts on the case are here.
Editor: From time to time we post guest opinion pieces and comments worth noting. This is another from Bob Enos of Willmar, Minnesota (home of Jenny-O turkeys!). Here he is reacting to a pronouncement by the state legislature that it simply cannot calculate the cost of refugees to the taxpayer.
Of course, since the state’s auditors contend that the numbers simply are not available, then conversely that means that every economic study from the likes of ‘Welcoming America,‘Global Detroit! (and Lutheran Social Services of MN and Arrive Ministries MN) which claim immigrants and refugees bring economic prosperity to small towns and dying cities can’t possibly make that conclusion. Data on the true costs are not available says the Minnesota legislature.
Here is Mr. Enos:
On March 10, 2017, the Saint Cloud Times(Minnesota) newspaper – a Gannett Media publication – reported, “Refugee costs are difficult to gather, report says”. The story was published in the aftermath of Saint Cloud city council member Jeff Johnson’s spirited but vain attempt to gather support for a study of refugee resettlement’s economic impact on his city and county.
Of course, whether the costs are difficult to gather or not evades the issue. Furthermore, it is but part of a larger question:
Are refugees a net gain to their communities?
In anticipation of the April 15 tax filing deadline, the following comes from a “pro forma” federal tax return for the fictitious Mr. and Mrs. Ahmed Mohammed.
What we know of the Mohammed family’s likely financial scenario comes from several sources: the US Office of Refugee Resettlement, the MN Department of Employment and Economic Development, the MN State Demographic Center, the MN State Refugee Resettlement plan, the World Health Organizations, and probably a few more sources rattling around in my head.
Here’s the Mohammed family profile.
Two parents are raising seven minor children in a nuclear family. One parent likely works in meatpacking, earning a maximum of $12 per hour for a 30-hour work week – just two hours shy of full-time employment, absolving the meatpacker of a health insurance obligation. The other parent is home (with seven children, someone has to stay home!), consistent with the 40-50% unemployment rate reported by several public and private sources.
Consequently, the family’s total wage income is $18,720. With exemptions and deductions totaling $49,150, there is ZERO tax liability. Stated another way, the family’s income would have to increase 145% – to $49,500 – for the family to begin having any federal tax liability at all.
What’s more, the Mohammed’s are income-eligible for the “earned income tax credit”, entitling the Mohammed’s to receive an IRS “rebate” of $6,318.
So much for the refugee family which earns its keep.
Now that we have confirmed the Mohammed’s tax status, let’s turn to the additional burdens placed upon taxpayers; the burdens that the MN Office of the Legislative Auditor finds inordinately complex.
The income threshold for poverty guidelines in Minnesota for a family of nine is about $45,900 annually; consistent with the income required for the Mohammed family to reach tax liability. The Mohammed’s income is only 41% of that which our federal government calls a family in similar circumstances 100% impoverished.
There is virtually NO poverty entitlement program for which the Mohammed’s are not eligible.
So, let’s add ‘em up.
Since Mr. Mohammed is considered a part-time employee, publicly-funded Medicaid provides the family health insurance. We know what our private insurance premiums are costing us, so let’s be lenient and estimate the value of the Mohammed’s insurance premium at a $1,000 per month, or $12,000 annually.
Subsidized housing for a four-bedroom apartment is close to a $1,000 per month, or $12,000 annually. The Mohammed’s will have no co-pay.
Estimates for the costs of teaching a non-English learner are about 50% over a mainstream education, according to most sources. In Minnesota, educating a mainstream student costs about $6,000 annually; for the refugee student, about $9,000, or $63,000 annually for the Mohammed family.
Federal supports and sundries
The federal Refugee Reception and Placement Program contracts with the nine “faith-based” VOLAG’s, to relocate and place the family over a 30-day period, for $2,225 per person. Total RRP tab for the Mohammed family: $20,025.
Minnesota’s “Diversionary Work Program” is intended to help parents prepare for the world of work. The family can qualify for a benefits package of up to $70 per person to cover expenses including shelter, utilities, phone allowances, and other “personal needs”. Total expense for the Mohammed family: $630 a month, or their eligibility for the cash portion of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (read: welfare), whichever is less. For a family of just two, the cash portion of the MFIP is $408 per month. MFIP assistance lasts for five years. Oh, and by the way; up to 43% of the Mohammed family’s earned income is disregarded when determining the net income for computing their monthly benefits. Essentially, the Mohammed family will be eligible for the maximum full ride on this program for five years.
If, by some freak occurrence, the Mohammed family is ineligible for the benefits described above (and how could they be?), the state Refugee Cash Assistance program will pick up the slack. RCA provides a monthly standard of $437 for a childless couple, so it’s a safe assumption that a family of nine will receive at least twice that amount.
The federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Minnesota Supplemental Aid (MSA) provides cash assistance for aged, blind, or disabled refugees.
Then there are: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a/k/a food stamps; refugee health screening for communicable and infectious diseases; employment services; English-language learner classes; federally-mandated translation services for schools, hospitals, health clinics, law enforcement, judiciary, and corrections. [And, I will add a cost never calculated and that is the cost of the criminal justice system if just one of the ‘children’ has a run-in with the law.—ed]
Finally, there have been suggestions that employers of refugees, such as in the meatpacking industry, receive cash subsidies from the US Department of Labor, intended to offset the cost of training the refugees. In the past, federally-funded “on-the-job” training at the worksite has enabled employers to recover cash equal to 50% of the employees’ wages for up to twelve months.
Have I said enough, fellow activists?
Small wonder Minnesota’s Legislative Auditor can’t get its head wrapped around refugee resettlement finances. And it won’t. And neither will any other agency of local, county, or state government. Because it’s the equivalent of pulling a loose thread on your clothing. And because the motivation, the incentive, simply is not there.
Run the numbers for health care, housing, education, cash assistance, and sundries, and this one Mohammed family appears to produce liabilities to federal, state, county, local, and school district taxpayers of about a HALF MILLION DOLLARS over a five-year period.
So, the hair-splitting and hand-wringing that reports like the Minnesota Legislature’s Auditor produced this month are simply a diversion. The question is not whether or not refugee resettlement burdens the taxpayers. The existence of the burden is beyond question. The central questions is: how much, if any, burden is our society willing to incur?How much of a burden is TOO much? Those are political questions. Meanwhile, we as a nation are now faced with the management of a chronic financial burden.
And with regard to the future political question, the following proposal is a reasonable starting point for a conservative’s solution:
1) Any refugee resettled in the US must have pre-arranged employment, pre-arranged unsubsidized housing, and a private sponsor that secures an insurance policy – a bond – to relieve government of any financial liability, should the resettlement threaten to become a public charge;
2) Refugees must be INELIGIBLE for any public assistance, excluding the public education of minor children, for the first five years following resettlement;
3) The taxpaying public is long past the point for trusting its government agencies associated with refugee resettlement to audit themselves. It’s time for the establishment of Citizen Review Boards, bestowed with the legal authority and the funding to retain private, independent auditors; to identify which public programs are to be measured, the metrics used to measure them; to share what is learned with the citizenry, through neighborhood-based discussion and debate; and to recommend reforms or repeal. Lastly, it is time for citizens to DEMAND that state legislatures take up this issue for discussion, debate, and resolution.
We do not need the permission of the federal government to protect our communities. What we need is the political will, along with very thick skin.
Mr. Enos’ guest column is archived in my category entitled: ‘Comments worth noting/guest posts,’ here. You will find other columns by Mr. Enos there as well.
Endnote: In 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies took a stab at calculating the cost of Middle Eastern refugees to your wallets, here. And more recently the Federation for Immigration Reformdid a calculation, here.
I see that although Congress is debating the budget for the remainder of the year, there are still millions of taxpayer funds sloshing around HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlementand those have been offered up for grabs starting this week.
We’ve been reporting on the fact that the nine federal refugee contractors,*** which monopolize all resettlement in the US, are paid by the head to place refugees in your towns and that they are hurting financially as the Trump Administration slows the flow of new paying clients.
The first is one of the most outrageous ones we have ever discussed. It is the ‘Refugee Individual Development Accounts (IDA) Program.’
In a nutshell, to be eligible, refugees must save some money toward a house, a car, a business or education and their savings are MATCHED by you up to a limited amount. For example, if a family saves $4,000, you, dear taxpayer, will match them another $4,000.
The match-money is managed (and doled out) by middlemen NGOs awarded the grant—the contractors or their subcontractors usually. Don’t believe me,see here.
Incidentally, one of the side benefits of the Leftwing government contractors/community organizers as middlemen is that it endears the refugees to that local non-profit. I’m sure the refugees think the non-profit group is giving them money!
This is the grant availability for the coming year for refugee savings accounts….
And, here I went back to look at previous grants for the IDA and it sure looks like Idaho’s Mountain States/Janus Inc. (they are one and the same) have figured out the racket as the organization got a couple of big dips into the federal trough.
The second grant announcement from ORR is the ‘Refugee Family Child Care Microenterprise Development Program.’ See here.
Besides the fact that here we have the middlemen contractors and subcontractors getting paid to help refugees set up businesses that of course will compete with American businesses where the American citizen worked hard to establish her daycare service, we reported here in 2013that the ORR program touted the fact that the children cared for by refugee day care workers would get “culturally appropriate” care.
So much for assimilating the kids!
And, this will surely steam you—-the money is only available to those not yet US citizens.
Here is the grant announcement:
This post is filed in my ‘where to find information’category.
***You can bet the nine contractors (below) and their subcontractors will be scrambling for these millions of dollars made available a few days ago.
The number in parenthesis is the percentage of their income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the refugees, line them up with jobs, and get them signed up for their services! From most recent accounting, here.
….but we continue to admit them anyway—to America and to Europe.
Thanks to reader Paul for sending this unnecessarily long article in the April issue of The Atlanticby author Graeme Wood.
I don’t know why it takes so many words to confirm that yes, many lie, that this is an invasion, that the at-once diabolical and gullible Lefties are driving it, and so what if Germany is now seriously screening the migrants. Is that comforting to know?
It is too late for dear Deutschland!
That said, I do hope our US screening process is beefing up as Wood tells us the Germans are.
My question for Germany is this:
So you find out they are lying, do you now have the spine to put them on planes back to the Middle East and Africa (I doubt it!)?
Graeme Wood atThe Atlantic:
(Emphasis is mine)
Three years ago [at the height of the Obama Administration—ed], overcome by the squalor of my home, I decided to hire a cleaner. I scanned Craigslist, feeling a prick of guilt; few things arouse class angst as reliably as the purchase of domestic help. Then I remembered another option. Near my Connecticut home was a refugee-resettlement center. On weekdays, dozens of recent arrivals loitered there, eager for work. This seemed to offer a solution to both my squalor and my angst. To pay a Craigslist gig worker felt a little icky. To pay a refugee—well, that felt magnanimous, almost patriotic. [Clearly Graeme wasn’t reading RRW!—ed]
I wrote to the resettlement center, which sent me a stack of résumés. Even the ones from Congolese herders were well formatted and in English—the result, surely, of polishing by the center’s staff. The stories, I found, made propulsive reading, despite the outline form. I was tempted to request more résumés for the understated drama alone. Each was the timeline of a life interrupted in a distant, volatile land and now picked up, improbably, in a snowy New England town.
An Afghan with no formal education claimed to know a language not spoken in any country she had visited; an African doctor whose CV could have gotten him a job with the World Health Organization in a week was working a cash register in Bridgeport. Two refugees claimed to be from, respectively, Zambia and Tanzania, countries without war or persecution that could justify asylum. (The refugees had almost certainly claimed different nationalities in their application for asylum.) Another said she was from the Democratic Republic of the Congo—a major generator of refugees—but spoke languages that suggested origin in the now relatively safe country of Rwanda. It was as if the center had sent me a dozen jigsaw puzzles, all with either missing pieces or extra ones.
All of the refugees were qualified to clean my house. (The doctor was overqualified, and I wondered whether I should be cleaning his.) But detail after detail hoisted my eyebrows. An asylum officer had heard each story—or some variant of it—and judged the claimant credible enough to welcome him into the United States. For my part, it was hard not to conclude that most of the stories were shot through with lies.
It is not clear if Wood ever hired any of them.
Mr. Wood moves on to discuss Germany…..
The new migrants tend to be young and male, and therefore at times unruly, and the far right has stoked fear of swarthy men’s lust for European women. But accompanying the xenophobia are worrisome facts. Two years after the peak of the influx, more than 80 percent of refugees were jobless, in a general population whose unemployment rate is 5.5 percent. Successful integration is not assured. [Why is it xenophobic to point out the problems? That is what is wrong with writers like Mr. Wood. Can’t they just admit that maybe he and his Leftwing open borders pals are wrong without the virtue-signalling!—ed]
LOL! But at least history is not a stranger to him….
He could have quit right there.
More here if you have an hour.
Germans (Brits, French, etc.) are systematically being replaced. It is an invasion. It isn’t first and foremost about economic migrants vs. real refugees and how government authorities can tell one from the other.
That is what Austrian Martin Sellner tried to tell the good citizens of the UK a couple of days ago.
It is about the Hijra—-the Islamic doctrine of conquest via migration!
Mr. Wood goes on to laboriously describe how Germany is now trying to throw off the invasion fears with a typically German bureaucratic paper-pushing vetting process which I hope is being employed at our Department of Homeland Security because it is still not too late for us!
My complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive extending back for nearly ten years is here.
Japan is one of the few countries in the world steadfastly attempting to maintain its “cultural and ethnic homogeneity” in the face of mounting pressure to open its borders.
See my posts over the yearsas western mainstream media, the United Nations, and international communists and open borders agitators regularly criticize Japan’s wish to save itself (just as they are now doing the same to Hungary and Poland).
Have you noticed that there are no Islamic terror attacks in Japan?
TOKYO (Reuters) – Two Syrian asylum seekers on Tuesday lost a bid to overturn a government decision to deny them refugee status, in the first such lawsuit in Japan since civil war erupted in the Middle Eastern state in 2011.
The Tokyo District Court upheld a government ruling made five years ago, that the pair’s bid for asylum was not admissible under international refugee law.
“The world understands the Syrian situation – it’s getting worse. But the Japanese court hasn’t understood that at all,” one of the plaintiffs, Joude Youssef, told a news conference. [The nerve! So Middle Eastern countries can’t stop fighting among themselves and that is Japan’s problem!—ed]
Speaking in Arabic through a Japanese interpreter, Youssef said he planned to appeal the court’s decision.
The second asylum seeker was not at the news conference.
Lawyers said Youssef had the right to stay in Japan, under a humanitarian status that allows residency but not full refugee rights. It was not clear if the second plaintiff would appeal.
Notice how the Reutersreporter can’t help but throw in this next bit about worker shortages and an aging population implying that the Japanese are stupid and should be inviting in the third world workers (who would of course change Japan forever!).
Youssef, a Kurd from the north of Syria, had applied for asylum in Japan in 2012, after saying he was persecuted for organizing pro-democracy demonstrations.
The Japanese government rejected the claim a year later, saying he lacked proof of his involvement in protests in Syria.
The second plaintiff had claimed asylum after refusing military service in Syria. [Think about this, because he refused military service in Syria he expects Japan to take care of him!—ed]
Although a major donor to international aid organizations, Japan has remained reluctant to take in refugees.
It accepted only 20 last year, with a record 19,628 people applying for asylum.
Japan, hang in there!
I’m posting this news, just so you are aware of it.
The men apparently called themselves the “crusaders” and lived in what is known as the Kansas Meatpacking Triangle where the big slaughterhouses, like Tyson Foods, are bringing in immigrant and refugee labor to do the “dirty work” for low wages.
KCUR reporter/editor #stream/0" target="_blank">Frank Morris is hot on the case as a reporter for NPR.
I’ll try to post more links (at this post) as I see them here during the trial.