Is Minnesota’s welcome mat still out
for refugees?
Posted
by Ann Corcoran 1/14/18
That is the question that the Twin Cities Pioneer Press seeks to answer in a longish article published yesterday. (Was it ever
really out, or were Minnesotans kept in the dark and never asked?)
Employing a technique we have become
accustomed to seeing, reporter Bob Shaw uses a family as his ‘poster family’
that seems to be the kind of people America can absorb—hardworking, speak
English, grateful—so as to get your sympathy juices flowing. But
otherwise, I think it is was a pretty balanced and generally factual piece.
It’s long and chock-full of
information. Here are some snips that interested me and I wanted to
comment on (emphasis is mine):
Minnesota has the highest number of refugees per capita nationwide,
according to the U.S. Census and
refugee-support agencies. With 2 percent of the nation’s population, Minnesota
has 13 percent of its refugees.
The cutback in the refugee inflow
has shaken Minnesota’s network of sponsoring agencies. [I don’t believe we are told in this article
that the “sponsoring agencies” are handsomely paid for their ‘charitable
works.’—-ed]
Kim Crockett (Center of the American
Experiment) said residents often don’t speak out or even ask questions of
the process for fear of being called racists.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/about/kim-crockett/
They say the more refugees, the
better. They argue that refugees boost the economy, diversify our state and
eventually pay back the costs of their resettlement.
Yet, refugees cost an estimated $107,000 each in food aid, medical
expenses and other services, according to one researcher. Communities have no
control over the in-flow of refugees, yet they must share the cost of
supporting them. And, according to Kim Crockett, vice president of the Center
of the American Experiment, a conservative think tank based in Golden Valley.
“No one ever asks
taxpayers: ‘Do you want to support this?’ ” she said. “When we question this,
we are told that is mean-spirited, bigoted and xenophobic.”
Refugee advocates made a
huge mistake!
I’ve been giving this above a lot of
thought lately and have concluded that the refugee industry made a huge blunder
years ago in its treatment of local citizens. Of course the refugee
advocates and contractors thought they could go on forever keeping information
secret from the local people and now once the locals see that they have been
kept in the dark and are reacting, the only thing left for the industry is to pull out
the “racist” label, thus making locals even angrier.
Pioneer Press continues
with more on that Notre Dame study which doesn’t seem to me supports the idea
that more refugees are good for Minnesota. Twenty years! It is going to
take twenty years for taxpayers to be repaid for their generosity!
Refugees are free to apply for
taxpayer-funded government aid, like any other residents. Nonprofit groups
often help them apply.
A 2017 Notre Dame study on the economic outlook of refugees said that
after 20 years, refugees are more likely than native-born residents to be
receiving welfare and food-support payments — and they are also more likely to
be employed.
What does that tell you? Employed at
what? Obviously work (like meatpacking in MN!) that doesn’t pay enough to allow
them to get off of welfare!
Crockett thinks that initial outlay
is too high as well and points out that although this is a federal program, the
feds have dumped huge costs on the taxpayers of Minnesota:
The refugee resettlement program is
a federal effort, but the federal government “does not compensate Minnesota, or
the local school districts, cities or counties, who may find themselves coping
with large concentrations of refugees,”
Crockett says.
So when many refugees end up enrolled in Medicaid or assistance
programs such as those for housing or transportation or language study,
Minnesotans absorb the extra costs.
This next bit is always said in understanding tones—refugees want to
live with their own kind of people, near their own cultural and ethnic kindred
spirits and relatives.
The Star Tribune posted a glowing
account of life in Little Mogadishu (Minneapolis) last year. Can you ever
imagine such a story about a neighborhood that was proud of (and attempted to
retain) its Christian English roots. Why aren’t there calls (using words
like racist and xenophobic) for Somalis to “welcome” diversity to their
neighborhoods?
http://www.startribune.com/inside-little-mogadishu-no-one-is-an-outcast/414876214/
But, here is what I want to know—-why is that same understanding not
given to people with European roots? Why are we told we aren’t permitted to
seek out our kind of people, but it is so acceptable for say Somalis (and other
refugee groups) to develop enclaves?
Why isn’t that Somali,
who wants to live with his kind, never called a racist?
The state doesn’t keep track of
refugees who arrive in the U.S. and then move to Minnesota. But the federal
government does.
Minnesota accepted 4,523 refugees in
the two-year period ending Sept. 30, 2015, according to the federal Office of
Refugee Settlement. But at the same time, a second wave arrived — 3,864
refugees who moved from other states to Minnesota.
Minnesota’s secondary migration was
larger than all other states combined. Second-place Iowa had 442 refugees
moving from other states. [The story
doesn’t tell you that most of the secondary migrants are Somalis and a few
other African ethnic groups.—ed]
In other words, as soon
as they have a choice of where to live, many refugees choose Minnesota. “Minnesota
has been a magnet,” said Bob Oehrig, director of Arrive Ministries in
Richfield, an agency that handles refugees. He said Minnesota has what refugees
want — jobs,
good social welfare programs, and plenty of people from their home country
[Somalia!—-ed]. There is
much more here for you
to chew on!
Strategic error!
These (below) are the nine major
federal contractors making decisions about who comes to your towns and cities.
They are paid by the head to place refugees and are now in budgetary panic-mode
as the Trump Administration slows the flow to America.
International Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular)
At some point in the last three
decades they made a strategic (fatal?) error when they chose to act in secrecy
and treat local communities and citizens with disdain and vilification instead
of trying to be honest and understanding of concerns people have for their
security, their culture and their wallets. As a result the backlash
against them is real and growing!
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/is-minnesotas-welcome-mat-still-out-for-refugees/
No comments:
Post a Comment