Remaking Rutland with Refugees

The character of the city of Rutland, Vermont is facing major change. Nestled in the beautiful Green Mountains of Vermont, it is an unsuspecting city targeted for refugee resettlement. After being kept in the dark since their mayor’s unilateral decision to accept 100 Syrian and Iraqi refugees in October, Rutland citizens should investigate the threatening impact that refugee resettlement has on their own public security, economic stability and community health before it’s too late. Photo courtesy Green Mountain Power The city of Rutland was chosen as the site to place refugees by the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), one of the nine major federally-funded refugee resettlement contractors or voluntary agencies (volags), and its local affiliated field office or subcontractor, the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program (VRRP). According to Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch, once a site is chosen for resettlement, the agency submits an annual resettlement plan to the State Department in order to receive federal funding of nearly $2,000 per refugee sponsored in addition to federal grants of up to $2,200 per refugee sponsored. Refugee resettlement has become a billion dollar industry, according to investigative journalist James Simpson, a former economist and budget examiner for the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The VRRP has not openly disclosed its proposed resettlement abstract to Rutland. Such abstracts list the targeted town’s available facilities and amenities, such as subsidized housing, mental health facilities, and public schooling, for the refugees. Exposing the contents of the abstract prior to resettling or “seeding” refugees (a term coined by a resettlement agency) is a cause of great concern for the agency, as it would shake some sense into the citizens of Rutland and most likely prevent refugee resettlement. Concerned citizens should ask for full disclosure of the abstract now. They should also ask who pays for refugee resettlement and for how long. One month after arrival, refugees are provided with taxpayer-funded services such as Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, public housing assistance, child care, food stamps, and much more, costing billions of dollars a year. However, after a couple of months, government funding runs out, and it becomes incumbent upon the community to take over and provide. Showing compassion to Syrian refugees who have suffered persecution at the hands of their government by taking them in seems like the morally correct thing to do -- but not at the expense of American financial stability (national debt of nearly $20 trillion), health security (rise in infectious diseases, especially tuberculosis, brought in by refugees) and national security (global jihad on the rise). Given the rising number of Rutland’s low-income citizens in desperate need of assistance, city officials should be leading efforts to develop ways to take care of their own first, including war veterans, seniors, drug addicts, and the homeless. Many refugees in the U.S. today are supported by lifetime cash assistance programs, while Americans are being pushed off time-limited welfare programs. According to Corcoran, refugees are treated as U.S. citizens in that they qualify for all federal, state, and local welfare programs after one month. This raises the refugee resettlement costs to billions of dollars a year. More questions need answering. Where will the refugees work? Will employment specialists help refugees ahead of unemployed Americans? Is there enough public housing for refugees given the number of homeless in any given American town? Can the school system handle multiple foreign languages and illiterate children? Who will pay for English Language Learner (ELL) services for refugees in public schools, or for mandated interpreters? Will social disruption occur? And if it does, will Rutland’s police force be ready? What happens when the town can’t afford refugee resettlement anymore? How will Rutland’s health department manage, given that numerous diseases, especially tuberculosis, are permitted entry into the U.S. via the refugee population? Breitbart reported Sunday that in 2015, Indiana took in almost 400 migrants with latent (non-infectious) tuberculosis, and four refugees from the federal refugee resettlement program with active tuberculosis. Unbeknownst to many is that 10% of latent tuberculosis develops into infectious tuberculosis. Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, criticizes the Centers for Disease Control for allowing refugees to enter the U.S. without screening and treatment for latent tuberculosis. Furthermore, many refugees who were treated for active tuberculosis in their indigenous countries (paid for by U.S. taxpayer dollars so that they could move to the U.S.) ended up with a recurrence within two years. Equally important in considering refugee entry into the U.S. is insisting on the implementation of a broader definition of Syrian refugee status by the U.S. administration. This new all-encompassing definition should include people who are persecuted not only by the ruling regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (according to the UN definition of refugee) but by Sunni militias, such as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda, that oppose the ruling regime. That way, federal refugee resettlement agencies would be forced to admit not only Syrian Muslims into the U.S., but also Syrian Christians and Yazidis who are being massacred, forced into sexual slavery, and facing genocide in the Middle East at the hands of the Islamic State. Another point to carefully consider is that almost all refugees coming to the U.S. are chosen by the United Nations (UN), which is, in turn, highly influenced by the powerful Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the world’s largest Islamic organization consisting of 57 Islamic member states. The OIC is also the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the UN). It helps shape the course of international relations and security policies in accordance with its goal of establishing a global Islamic caliphate that subjugates the entire world to Islamic law or sharia. This is accomplished with the help of sharia-complaint speech codes deriving from OIC- and Hillary-backed UN Resolution 16/18. Those speech codes are pervading Europe and criminalizing those who criticize Islam, even when that criticism is true -- an offense that is punishable by death in most Islamic countries -- and are slowly creeping into America to facilitate the Islamization of the West. Because no database for personal background checks exist in countries like Syria, how can any screening process for weeding out jihadists from the influx of Syrian (mainly Muslim) refugees granted asylum into the U.S. be considered reliable or trustworthy? Two of the Paris bombers were smuggled into Europe with fake Syrian passports purchased in Turkey. Based on EU figures, it has been reported that four out of five migrants in Europe are not from Syria, but from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Albania and sub-Saharan African countries such as Nigeria. Even if a database existed to provide solid background information on jihadist activity, how does one screen for refugees supportive of a global Islamic caliphate run by Islamic law or sharia, which runs contrary to Western values and threatens the Western way of life as jihadists do? Meanwhile, the Islamic State boasts that thousands of jihadists have been smuggled into Europe, while Lebanese Education minister, Elias Bou Saab, warns that one in 50 Syrian refugees in Europe could be an Islamic State jihadist. As the U.S resettles more and more allegedly Syrian (mainly Muslim) refugees, there is mounting concern over jihadists having the capability to successfully make their way over to the U.S. to wreak havoc and destruction. As Europe is handed over on a silver platter to a wave of sharia-adherent refugees threatening European democracy and culture, isn’t it time Americans wake up and take a lesson from their fellow Westerners? With so much at stake, Rutland should be safeguarding its own financial, national and medical security interests above those of others. It must take care of its own first, or eventually face an existential crisis.