moratorium (2)

For most of my adult life, I have worked with refugees both overseas and in the US. So, I DO understand the plight of refugees and the challenges of successfully resettling them in their new American homeland.


That said, I just read a lengthy article in the local newspaper in which the mayor and the local refugee resettlement director discounted the Syrian refugee threat by sweepingly equating the reaction of those of us with legitimate concerns about the flawed vetting process of Syrian refugees with "knee-jerk reactions of politicians". I was understandably irked. The very idea of my being a politician is offensive. But, at least my colleagues and I weren't characterized as bigots, racists, xenophobes or Islamophobes. Very surprising, indeed.

In the article, the local director was quoted as saying that "all refugees go through a rigorous review process before being allowed to come to the U.S." He went on to say that "we shouldn't allow terrorists and criminals to dictate changes to our great tradition of welcoming the stranger", pointing out that local resettlement agencies "can't pick and choose whom to accept."

That last string of quotes smacked of talking points--not reasoned arguments--for permitting the influx of inadequately vetted Syrian refugees into our community. I immediately questioned that if the threat of "terrorists and criminals" should not dictate how we tackle the question of welcoming potential terrorists and criminals into our midst, then what exactly should dictate whom we permit to resettle next door to us.

His also stating that local agencies "can't pick and choose whom to accept" is, for the most part, false. In the case of refugees entering to join family members already here, then, yes, the agency is expected to accept them into our community; however, so-called "free cases", or those refugees without anchor relatives already in place in the community, may be rejected for resettlement by the local agency. Bear that mind.

He went on by asserting that "Syrians coming to the US will likely come through an orderly process from refugee camps," again adding that "it is a very secure process." Likely? Not reassuring.

Obviously he has ignored or entirely discounted the remarks of our security agency heads who have consistently and unambiguously warned about the flawed vetting process of Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees.

Since I'm sure the local resettlement program has come under considerable pressure of late, and not wanting to pile on, I contacted an old colleague and friend at the national refugee resettlement agency with which the local agency is affiliated.

I explained that local community groups with whom I am closely affiliated have understandable concerns about the resettlement of Syrian refugees in our community, and went on to cite the quotes of the local director which appeared in the newspaper.

His first reaction was that it was not true that the local agency cannot reject refugees. Those who are not arriving to join family members already resettled in the community may be rejected by the local agency. This would certainly describe all the Syrian refugees earmarked for resettlement in this community. 

Throughout the cordial conversation--we hadn't spoken for years--I sensed a inclination on his part to adroitly skirt the potential threat posed by the resettlement of Syrian refugees. When queried about the inadequate vetting process for Syrian refugees in particular, he seemed unaware of the DIA's, FBI's and DOD's warnings about the absence of an adequate database to properly vet these refugees. Has there been a news blackout?

He emailed me an updated version of the 13-step vetting process currently in use, and seemed convinced that the process was adequate. I pointed out that the vetting process is fine as it applies to non-Middle Eastern refugee groups, but that we're talking about Islamic refugees, some of whom could well be ISIS or Al Quaida infiltrators; that it only took 8 radical Islamists to slaughter 129 people in Paris. He gingerly acknowledged this threat, but quickly went on to point out the obvious: these refugees have been in camps for up to 4 years and are badly in need of help; that after such a prolonged period of time "one would think" that [even without a database with which to work] that the wheat could be effectively separated from the chaff. 

I opined that merely hoping that such is the case is one thing, but asked if on that hope alone were we willing to risk a terrorist attack which might otherwise have been averted. He again gently agreed, but kept returning to the genuine suffering of the bulk of Syrian refugees. That was his fallback position throughout the conversation. He could never really bring himself to fully grapple with the real threat of improperly vetted Syrian refugees. For him, compassion alone trumped caution.

We both worked in refugee camps in Southeast Asia and were both involved in interviewing and otherwise screening SEA refugees before they were finally approved for entry into the US. Clearly, these were entirely different refugee groups--no terrorist inclinations among them at all. Thus, the vetting process for SEA refugees proved to be adequate and no warnings from our security agencies about the vetting process were necessarily forthcoming.

We agreed that the suffering Syrian refugees needed help, but we couldn't agree that a moratorium on the resettlement of Syrian refugees was the responsible course of action to take.

We then spoke about the difficulty we all had with smoothly resettling Somalian refugees in the past, but he couldn't recall but two Somalians being arrested for terrorist related activities after arrival. I reminded him of a substantial number of Somalian refugees who had been resettled in Minnesota who had linked up with ISIS; that although they are likely under close surveillance by the U.S. government they are still free and their legal status here unchanged. In short, I reminded him that they remained a serious potential terrorist threat to the homeland. Again he agreed, but was indisposed to grasp the true nature of the threat. Like so many companies and organizations, it is difficult for resettlement agencies, local or national, to see things as they really are, in this case to clearly see the threat attending a flawed vetting process. As always, agency and organization culture and those inevitable talking points pretty much dictates an employee's outlook and opinions. So, while his stance was unsurprising, when weighing the validity of refugee program commentary, from the start we must all bear carefully in mind this ingrained myopia.

Possible remedy: if a refugee is a "Free Case" (with no familial US ties), the local resettlement agency CAN, in fact, say no. Thus, the remedy for those of us who are pushing for a moratorium  on the resettlement of Syrian refugees may be to pressure the local resettlement agency to reject Free Syrian cases. In most communities without Syrian refugees already in place, such an effort would most certainly stop the influx. Moratorium accomplished on the local level.

With this in mind, I drafted the following editorial for local consumption. The newspaper's being a seriously liberal newspaper, who can say if it will be published:

"Dear Editor:

Though ISIS has dubbed the Islamist terrorist attack on Paris as but the
“first of the storm”, Pres. Obama continues to mystifyingly describe “global
warming”, coal and CO2 as THE most profound threats we face as a nation; worse,
he continues to vigorously push for the entrance of thousands of inadequately
vetted Syrian “refugees” into our homeland.
Despite the existential threat of Islamic terrorism, and warnings against such a
Syrian influx by our own security agencies, the Administration remains
recklessly determined to resettle these refugees in our communities.
I've worked with refugees both here and abroad for most of my adult life, so no
one can honestly discount my compassion when it comes to helping suffering
refugees; however, until our security agencies verify that an adequate vetting
process is in place a moratorium on the resettlement of Syrian “refugees” is a
no-brainer.  Anything less would be terribly irresponsible.
Moving past empty-headed political correctness, delusional ideology and faux
compassion, let’s properly safeguard our homeland and families from the menace
of radical Islamic terrorism."

Read more…
Persistent Presidential Policies Provoke Potential Business Paroxysm

Repeatedly saying, “I am the job’s president,” “I’m a true friend of small business,” “I have the best interests of America’s Business at heart,” “My administration is fully-committed to fostering a climate supporting the business community,” etc., etc., ad nauseum . . . repeatedly spewing words, Mr. President, that are belied by vicious and repeated haranguing from the other side of your mouth . . . and belied more importantly, by a host of anti-business actions since Inauguration Day -- it just doesn’t wash . . . .
Item: If President Obama’s “six-month” moratorium on offshore drilling goes into effect, the eventual economic effect of his moratorium, will in all probability utterly dwarf the economic effect of the spill itself. All the Gulf state governor’s have called the moratorium hasty, ill-conceived and likely to seriously undercut their states’ recovery.
ITEM: Mr. Obama frankly told the San Francisco Chronicle his “energies policies will bankrupt the coal industry.” He has also repeatedly declared his cap and trade plan will “necessarily make the price of electricity skyrocket.” Threatening to bankrupt essential industries? Threatening to make the price of the most fundamental aspect of any business “skyrocket”? This is no way to create business confidence or a supportive business atmosphere.
ITEM: Obama has promised to reinstitute on January 1, 2011, all the tax cuts and tax amnesties instituted by the Bush administration. Spending by this administration has dwarfed that of all previous administrations. Rising taxes and snowballing government spending has always been a recipe for economic shutdown.
ITEM: consider the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, Obama said, “Would stop all bailout’s forever.” Actually, the concept of “too big to fail” is written ingloriously right into that law and guarantees that such bailouts will become a way of life. Thus all big (too big to fail) businesses are free to take the most unwise risks imaginable and thus maximize their chances of huge profits while always having that government safety net below them that he just signed into law. Small business can fail while big business canNOT; Big business can gun for huge profits at no risk which would bankrupt small businesses.
ITEM: consider again the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, the original problem besetting the country was actually a sub-prime lending crisis brought about largely by ACORN abuse (Barack Obama was an ACORN lawyer shaking down lending companies) and its effect upon agencies like Freddy Mac and Frannie Mae and HUD (housing urban development agency). HUD in 1995 under weaker versions of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act granted 44% of all their housing loans to people who objectively could NOT afford to repay the mortgage. (Carter’s CRA ’77 was expanded to include Freddie and Fanny in ’92; twice expanded in 1995 and finally expanded on steroids in 1998 -- these last three moves all under Bill Clinton). By 2005 52% of all HUD loans were made to people who objectively were not fiscally eligible for the loans given to them including illegal aliens, people without jobs, and some people without even a rental history. So how were these fundamental problems addressed by the “reform” bill? These problems were NOT addressed at all. Not one single change to HUD, Fanny Mae nor Freddy Mac is found in the 2,300 page bill. In fact, the laws that did us in, all five of them, are still on the books.
ITEM: consider again the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, hundreds of “directives” are required by the new law . . . directives not yet written; directives not yet written by regulators not yet hired. Once again a monstrous bill (2,300 pages) has been passed and no one actually knows what’s in it, or what it does, or how it does it. This is gross uncertainty, Mr. Obama. Legitimate business never thrives under uncertain conditions.
ITEM: consider again the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, the bill itself is self-contradictory in numerous places implying that execution and control could be under this federal agency or that one or this other one or perhaps under a couple of them or even all three of them. More uncertainty for businesses.
ITEM: consider again the financial overhaul “Reform” bill just signed into law, one thing is certain, the bill is going to be a nightmare for business offices to deal with . . . tons of paperwork, tons of bureaucracy . . . all at huge costs to businesses in time, salaries, repeated efforts, etc. A nasty certainty for business.
ITEM: consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” more directives not written by more bureaucrats not all hired yet. 3,300 pages worth of newness, including almost 390 brand new government agencies created (FDR’s entire presidency spawned only 40 new government agencies). Uncertainty for the next eight years (when the final shoe drops as Obamacare is phased in) is horrible for business.
ITEM: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” 390 new government agencies means a horrific and an incredible ultra-bureaucratic bombing of businesses . . . the likely paperwork snowstorm is sure to be very expensive of time and money and trouble.
ITEM: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” ooops, it’s going to increase the deficits, the national debt and the problems for the country, not a good atmosphere for business to operate under.
ITEM: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care“reform,”
health care insurance, as we now know it, is effectively wiped out by 2018 . . . in other words, government interference has consumed and by overbearing bureaucracy, utterly and negatively transformed an entire American business industry. That is certain to invoke the notion, "Are we next? More threat and more uncertainty for business.
Item: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” it is now 100% certain that “elective” abortion is covered by Obamacare as shown by the first two Obamacare offices opened up in New Mexico and in Pennsylvania. Based upon President Obama’s signed paper for Michigan Representative Bart Stupak swearing that the longtime federal policy of NOT funding abortions would continue with Obamacare, then since it clearly appears abortions are among the very first conditions covered by Obamacare, somebody lied and businesses don’t operate well under despotic, lying governments . . . ever.
ITEM: again consider Obamacare’s so-called health care “reform,” it does nothing for improving health. It does nothing to lower health care costs. It merely sticks 390 new government agencies between doctor and patient. It is, in short, a nightmare supposedly designed to help American citizens and American business . . . but actually just a way to grab control of the pulse of America . . . business doesn’t operate well under devious government control . . . ever.
ITEM: returning to the matter of the Obama six-month offshore drilling moratorium, Mr. Obama has had two of his six-month moratoriums set aside by federal judges and is now involved in a third such moratorium he’s issued . . . what Rajjpuut would call ‘sleazy lawyer slow-down shenanigans,’ (even putting the horrible effect on the Gulf economy as each of the now operating well goes out of business and drillers eventually return in five or ten years) get a clue Mr. Obama, businesses don’t operate well under that kind of Washington arrogance and sleaze.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
Read more…