Always on Watch points us to Refugee Resettlement Watch, a new blog, and a very worthy effort, with useful information on the refugee resettlement program.
For instance did you know
Public benefits available to refugees and successful asylees include:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) formerly known as AFDC
Medicaid
Food Stamps
Public Housing
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Social Security Disability Insurance
Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) (direct services only)
Child Care and Development Fund
Independent Living Program
Job Opportunities for Low Income Individuals (JOLI)
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Post secondary Education Loans and Grants
Refugee Assistance Programs
Title IV Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Payments (if parents are “qualified immigrants”)
Title XX Social Services Block Grant Funds
Prior to 1980, refugee sponsoring agencies were totally responsible for all refugee needs, including housing, medical care and employment. Today they have virtually no responsibilities. A newly arriving refugee aged 65 can immediately retire on SSI/Medicaid never having worked a day in the U.S.
After 4 months the Volags [voluntary non-government agencies] do not even have to know where the refugees are located. Therefore they have no legal requirements to make sure the refugees are o.k. and are assimilating. One very interesting statistic I noted was that a few refugees actually return to their country of origin which brings up the question of how persecuted were they in the first place. In Washington Co. an Iraqi family left the area soon after arrival telling people the conditions were deplorable.''
I suspect that many Americans are not aware of these facts; they somehow believe that sponsors or 'the churches' who arrange for these refugees to come are somehow taking care of them once they are here.
My little town, I am told, has already been the recipient of the 'enrichment' of a refugee resettlement from Southeast Asia, but apparently the refugees found our little one-horse town not to their liking, and departed for greener pastures in California, so I'm told. (This all played out before I arrived here.)
The articles linked describe the problems experienced by the target towns when their shipment of refugees arrived; the liberal media always paint a glowing picture of the wide-eyed refugees awestruck by the luxuries of their new 'homes', and of course the picture usually includes fawning locals, usually city officials eager for a photo-op, spouting the 'diversity is our strength' blather. But sometimes even the local PC media will let slip that there are problems, such as the notorious Ham Sandwich of Hate incident which took place in Lewiston, Maine, after that town was appropriately 'enriched' by Somali immigrants.
I have often wondered whether some towns even try to resist the social engineering experiments being carried out on heartland America, or whether we still possess enough freedom in America to say 'no' to the forcible changes being wrought on us. It appears, from what I have been reading on these two blogs, that there is more resistance than we realize, and that fact is somewhat heartening.
According to Refugee Resettlement Watch, as far as they know, Cayce, Kentucky is the only town to have stopped refugee resettlement in advance. But at least there are questions being raised, and some people are organizing to look out for their town's interests.
Each day we are hearing more about the Iraqi refugees who are headed our way, and in light of the recent stories about the Kurdish gangs which have taken root in Nashville, Tennessee, of all places, it seems reckless to bring in Iraqi refugees who will assuredly bring their warring sects and tribal conflicts with them to this country.
So those of us who live in towns or cities which might be likely targets of refugee resettlements, and that includes any homogeneous heartland town, seemingly, we might well wonder if we are next, and if our town will be diversified and 'enriched' at our expense, against our will.
And is this refugee resettlement racket merely a money-making scheme for some? It definitely benefits some people financially: mortgage lending institutions, for example. Or is it also another manifestation of 'absentee moralism', in the words of Clyde N. Wilson at Chronicles?
Wilson describes absentee moralism as the tendency of do-gooders to declare that 'we', collectively, have to do something about some crisis somewhere, for example, Darfur. And of course the 'we' presumes that the rest of us, who may not agree on the appropriateness of intervention, must be press-ganged into doing something by means of sending our tax dollars or our sons and daughters to right some wrong on the other side of the world.
This absentee moralism strikes me as the most fundamental flaw of the American national character and a form of fraud that has played a large part in bringing on most of our national disasters, including the War Between the States, World War I, and mass Third World immigration.''
To me, the idea of absentee moralism is repugnant because, for one thing, someone else is presuming to act as my conscience or the conscience of America in general, and coercing me by means of the force of government to take part in whatever exercise in benevolence they have in mind. This is not how Christian charity works, despite the claims of the liberal Christian to be acting in the name of Christian charity. Charity is always voluntary and freely given; if coerced and required it is not charity at all, and no moral credit is deserved where charity is given under duress.
And what is this refugee resettlement program, but another example of coerced charity, or absentee moralism? It's moralism and charity on the cheap, for the individual, because it's the taxpayers' largesse which is paying for the do-good effort, not the checkbook of the do-gooder himself. I notice that those who are all in favor of mass immigration and feeding the world's hungry always have their hand in the next guy's wallet, rather than their own. Bono and Bob Geldof don't seem to have taken a vow of poverty or 'voluntary simplicity' in order to give their fortunes to their favorite charity cases. No; they want governments to give and give, while they themselves enjoy their privileges and luxuries. And no, there is nothing wrong with that but they should be a little more generous with their own money and less with others' money if they are sincere in caring about the world's poor.
The misplaced guilt which too many in the West often feel is part of what drives this warped altruistic instinct; altruism is good only if it does not bring the altruist to penury, or if it does not result in deprivation of those nearest to the altruist in favor of caring for distant strangers. We are built to care for those nearest to us; nature inclines us that way. We are not geared to caring just as much -- or more -- for people who are distant from us geographically or by blood. Yet this is the perverse direction our liberalized society has taken: we are ready to give away our homes, our towns, our children's future, to distant strangers.
It's easier to have the government do your good deeds for you; then you can go on your own self-centered way, satisified that you are compassionate and caring. Such is the attitude among many liberals.
Somehow the idea has taken hold that caring for strangers, the more exotic and even hostile the better, is morally superior to looking after one's own. How long can this unnatural state of affairs continue?
