by Ann Corcoran

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 CrockettKim 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. 

Little MogadishuThe 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.

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!