Tag Archives: Refugee Resettlement

Losing Our Rights As Communities

Posted on by

On Friday, Breitbart posted an article about one of President Biden’s recent executive orders. The order removes the authority of states and local communities to reject the drop-off of refugees into their towns and communities.

The article explains why some people might want to drop-off refugees without the consent of the local community:

In essence, former President Donald Trump’s policy (Executive Order 13888 of September 2019) gave state and local governments a say in whether they have the capacity to provide refugees a pathway to become self-sufficient and successfully integrate into American society.

Biden’s new executive order (EO) indicated that the federal government would consult with American communities across the country about refugees’ resettlement.

The president’s “Executive Order on Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration” noted:

Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Government, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in communities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefiting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country.

However, with the stroke of a pen Thursday, Biden revoked Trump’s Executive Order 13888 that enhanced state and local involvement in refugees’ resettlement within their jurisdiction.

The article continues:

Breitbart’s Neil Munro pointed out that Trump’s refugee policy from September 2019 gave states, cities, counties, and towns the legal power to stop groups from dumping foreign refugees into their communities, adding:

The policy will allow residents to block the stealthy efforts by refugee resettlement groups to direct new refugees into communities which are selected by local elites. This refugee dumping is usually done at the request of local employers, such as slaughterhouses, that want new workers to replace ones who quit because of low wages, harsh conditions, and health hazards.

During the Trump-era, Munro noted, refugee resettlement groups were forced to lay off workers amid the reduced inflow of refugees and federal funding.

Those groups denounced the former president’s refugee policy.

There is another part of this story that is often overlooked.

In March 2020, Breitbart reported:

Research by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that each refugee resettled in the U.S. cost American taxpayers anywhere on average between $60,000 and $133,000 over the course of a lifetime.

…Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to the latest research. Over the course of five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.

At a time when Americans are reeling from the economic impact of the coronavirus, we cannot afford to stretch our resources any further. It is time to focus on those people living in America who are here legally and have lost their jobs because of the coronavirus. Unfortunately this latest executive order from President Biden will result in more Americans losing their jobs to lower-paid workers. This executive order is another attack on the working class of America.

Why We Need Careful Vetting Of Refugees

Posted on by

Not all cultures are alike. There are actions and attitudes that are acceptable in Islamic cultures that are simply not acceptable in America–things like marrying a fourteen-year-old girl, female genital mutilation, honor killings, no rights for women, denying freedom of religion, etc. Unless refugees are willing to accept American views on those (and many other) cultural standards, they need to settle elsewhere. There are countries in the Middle East that share their culture. For whatever reason, those countries have not welcomed the refugees from their neighboring countries.

Fox News posted a story today about an incident in a small Idaho town that illustrates the problem of some of the refugee children now in our schools.

The article reports:

An alleged sexual assault on a five-year-old special needs girl has put a small Idaho city at the center of the debate over the Obama administration’s move to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Much of what occurred in the June 2 incident is unclear, clouded by emotion and rumor and sealed from public record due to the suspects’ ages. At a raucous public meeting Monday, dozens of residents of the city of 44,000 voiced their concerns after word had spread that young Syrian refugees had gang-raped a little girl at knifepoint, defiling her in unspeakable ways.

Some of what they had heard was true, some was not and still more remains unconfirmed speculation. But authorities believe something terrible occurred. Two young boys were arrested Friday and remain in custody.

Snopes reports that the story is ‘mostly false,’ but actually confirms some major parts of the story:

Despite the hot-button issue of refugee resettlement, the story has gained little traction with the national media, and Internet fact-check site Snopes.com has labeled the information circulating on the web as “mostly false.” According to Loebs (Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs), the three assailants, ages 7, 10 and 14, are not Syrian, but may be refugees. The girl was not raped, but is believed to have been sexually assaulted, he said.

The article further reports:

Twin Falls Police Chief Craig Kingsbury told reporters the suspects are Iraqi and Sudanese. Loebs said he does not know how long they have been living in the United States.

If you read the Snopes report, the website seems to be concerned about the fact that the attackers were not Syrians. That may be, but they are products of a culture that does not value women and where a women would have to have four witnesses to make a rape charge. They are also from a culture where a woman can be stoned because she has been raped. There have been exaggerations of the attack and misrepresentations of the nationality of the attackers, but the nature of the attack and the culture behind the attack are as reported.

One person interviewed in the story stated:

Twin Falls activists say the case and the lack of information from authorities demonstrates the problem with state and federal programs to resettle refugees in cities and towns.

“We’re worried that these are the kids who will be going to school with our kids,” said Odell. “We want to know what is happening.”

There are a lot of parents who feel this way.

Craven County Board of Commissioners

Posted on by

Last night I attended the meeting of the Craven County Board of Commissioners. One item on the meeting agenda was a discussion of a proposed draft resolution on refugees from terrorist nations. The substitute amendment, which was voted on, basically stated that because proper vetting of refugees from areas controlled by terrorist organizations is impossible, the Craven County Board of Commissioners opposes the relocation of these refugees to Craven County. The resolution has no enforcement mechanism, but does make a statement to those concerned with refugee resettlement that these refugees are not welcome in Craven County.

One of the main concerns of the people speaking for the resolution at the meeting was the safety of the people who currently reside in Craven County. Craven County is close to two major military installations, and our military has warned some residents of the county that they are terrorism targets. It is also noteworthy that one of the 911 hijackers took his flight training in Craven County. Evidently, we are already on the terrorists’ map.

The meeting was very well run, and personal attacks were discouraged. In spite of that, at various times during the evening those who supported the resolution were described as bigots, racists, unchristian, and uncaring. There seemed to be very little concern on the part of those opposing the resolution for the safety of those currently living in Craven County. At one point a person opposing the resolution stated that they were more afraid of American’s political right wing than they were of terrorism.

The resolution passed on a 6 to 1 vote. Although I respect the Commissioner who voted against the resolution, I feel that voting against the resolution was not in line with the oath he took to protect his constituents. There is a reason that countries in the Middle East are refusing to take these refugees. In September of 2015, Luay Al Khatteeb, a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution, posted the following map on Twitter:

SaudiRefugees

We do need to be compassionate in dealing with refugees from countries that have been taken over by terrorists, but we also need to consider our own safety. The ideal scenario would be to provide these refugees a place to live somewhere near their home countries so that after the hostilities in their home countries cease, they can go home and help rebuild their country. This is the effort we need to support.

National Security And The Refugee Program

Posted on by

On January 8th, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), along with Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and other Members of the Homeland Security Committee, held a press conference about the arrest of two Iraqi refugees. The video of the press conference is posted at YouTube.

This is the press conference:

This is the story as reported on News 25 in Texas:

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) wants the Senate to take up the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015.

McCaul’s push for the SAFE Act was included in a statement responding to two Iraqi-born refugees being arrested by U.S.officials on terror-related charges.

“While I commend the FBI for their hard work, these arrests heighten my concern that our refugee program is susceptible to exploitation by terrorists,” Chairman McCaul said.

The House passed the legislation in November with a bipartisan majority.

It requires comprehensive background checks of every refugee from Iraq or Syria before they can come into the U.S.

The FBI would have to certify the background investigation of each person.

In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security, along with the FBI Director and the Director of National Intelligence, would have to certify to Congress that each refugee is not a security risk.

This is the Congressional oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

It’s time for the members of Congress to live up to their oath.

Getting Past The Rhetoric

Posted on by

There is a lot being said right now about what to do with the Syrian refugees fleeing their country. The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday that shines a different light on the situation.

The article reports:

President Obama made headlines today in reaction to a question from the press regarding the possibility of taking in Syrian Christian and other religious minorities ahead or in place of Syrian Muslims (Syria is majority Sunni Muslim.) The President responded aggressively claiming such a policy was, “… not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

The reality however is that the Refugee Resettlement system already has “a religious test of their compassion”, to quote the president. And that’s a test which actively disfavors Christians, according to figures released by the State Department:

Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday. The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha’i, 6 Zoroastrians, 6 of “other religion,” 7 of “no religion,” and 3 atheists.

According to the CIA Factbook, Syria has a Christian population of 10%. Approximately between 500,000 and 700,000 Christians have fled Syria–about 16% to 23% of the estimated 3 million Syrians who have fled. Since Christians are one of the main targets of the Islamists, this figure makes sense.

So what is going on here? America does not get to choose her refugees.

The article reports:

As Nina Shea highlights at National Review, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is typically the deciding agency, and recommends to the United States which refugees will be resettled. So the selection process hits several snags. Firstly, Christian refugees almost overwhelmingly avoid United Nations refugee camps out of legitimate fears of possible violence against them. Reports of attacks on Christians refugees by their Muslim counterparts have been reported, such as when Christian refugees on a boat in the Mediterranean were thrown overboard, and German police have openly urged publicly separating Christian and Muslim refugees, due to attacks. In one case a Christian convert was beaten unconscious by a metal baton.

The second part of the problem is the fact that the United Nations is very much controlled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC comprises the largest voting block in the United Nations. The OIC is headquartered in Saudi Arabia, where the practice of Christianity is illegal.

The article explains the third part of the problem:

Thirdly, and perhaps most largely problematic, is the appearance of overt anti-Christian bias by the State Department itself. As good friend of the Center, Institute for Religion and Democracy’s Faith McDonnell notes in her recent piece on the state of Christian refugees, the State Department has explicitly declared they, “would not support a special category to bring Assyrian Christians into the United States,” in response to a plan by a private aid group to fund, entirely free of taxpayer dollars, the transport of Assyrian Christians facing extermination by Islamic State.

In other words, even when its free, no cost to them, the State Department has preferred to snub Christians rather than save them.

There is a religious test for refugees. Unfortunately that test is not only against the best interests of America, it discriminates against a persecuted group of refugees.