Friends of Refugees

A U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Watchdog Group

Archive for the ‘Assistant Secretary of the PRM’ Category

Senate confirms new Assistant Secretary of State of Population, Refugees and Migration Anne C. Richard

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 5, 2012

On March 29 the US Senate confirmed the former IRC Vice President Anne C. Richard as the new Assistant Secretary of State of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM). She will now be in charge of overseeing the State Department’s contracts with refugee resettlement contractors — for instance, the IRC. A notice at Human Rights First confirms the nomination:

On March 29, Anne C. Richard was confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate to serve as the Assistant Secretary of State of Populations, Refugees and Migration (PRM)…Ms. Richards was nominated by President Obama on November 4, 2011 and approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 6 weeks ago.

Ms. Richard has served as the Vice President of Government Relations and Advocacy for the International Rescue Committee (IRC) since 2004, and previously served as Director of the Office of Resources, Plans and Policy at the Department of State… Read more here

Posted in Ann Richard, IRC, revolving door | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

State Department Boosts Per-Refugee Stipend Again

Posted by Christopher Coen on February 22, 2012

In 2010, the US Department of State doubled the initial per-refugee resettlement stipend to $1800 (while allowing resettlement contractors to keep $700 of that for overhead). Today they announced (below) that they have raised it again this year. (It would be refreshing if they made some of these announcements before they make the decisions, and not after, to allow for public response). When they decide to give us the rest of the details perhaps they will tell us how much of that increase they will allow for the contractors’ overhead (all of it should go directly to the refugees). If the non-profit agencies – resettlement contractors – actually make real private contributions (once claimed as 25 cents for each dollar given by the State Department, or feds, although no proof offered) then I guess I don’t understand why, at the very least, they can’t pay their own overhead costs. 

…We understand that the current economic situation is challenging the ability of federal, state, and non-profit agencies to broadly assist refugees in need. In response, in 2010, the Department of State doubled the per-refugee stipend, and raised it again this year. The refugee admissions program is a public-private partnership. As such, non-profit agencies involved have also increased efforts to raise private resources to support refugees in need. And some businesses are stepping in to assist as well…

Kind regards,
David M. Robinson
Acting Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Read more here

Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, funding, public/private partnership, R&P | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Parts Of Tennessee’s Refugee Act and State Dept’s Visit To State Stop Making Sense

Posted by Christopher Coen on February 12, 2012

David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration apparently spent some time discussing the new refugee law implemented in Tennessee last year – the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act. State Sen. Jim Tracy, who sponsored the Act, alleges that the State Department thinks the new bill [actually a law now], which allows for local refugee moratoriums and codifies the federal regulation requiring quarterly meetings between resettlement agencies and local officials, is “just fine”. (???) An article in the Shelbyville Times-Gazette gives a view of the meeting from Tracy’s perspective:

A top representative of the U.S. State Department was in Tennessee this week to discuss a law dealing with the state’s refugee resettlement program.

The Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, which originated from the desk of State Sen. Jim Tracy, became law last July. It’s the first bill of its kind.

It requires the state’s refugee program agency, Catholic Charities, to meet four times a year with local governments to plan and coordinate “the appropriate placement of refugees in advance of the refugees’ arrival …”

The law also allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement if those agencies overload local resources, and so far, Tennessee is the only state that has passed this type of legislation…

A number of refugees from a variety of countries, such as Somalia, Burma and Egypt, have moved to Shelbyville in recent years to be closer to jobs at the Tyson Foods facility.

Tyson Foods needs workers who will willingly accept relatively low pay for the repetitive motion, cold environment jobs, and new refugee immigrants need jobs to support their families. (Alternatively, Americans could pay higher meat prices and the government could require companies like Tyson Foods to pay a more livable wage.)

…On Wednesday, David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, met with Tracy and other parties to discuss the law passed last year, the state senator told the T-G.

“That was the whole purpose of the visit, and they thought the bill was fine,” Tracy said, but he added that even though provisions in the new state refugee law passed last year was already codified in federal law, it had not been enforced…

Perhaps the State Department refugee office isn’t bothered by the new law’s quarterly meetings requirement, since it’s already an ORR regulation, but why would they think that the new law is just fine? Are moratoriums compatible with the constitutional provision that allows people freedom of movement? The government may not single out specific groups of people to restrict their freedom of movement (individuals get to decide for themselves where they want to live in this country).

…”If you are going to bring refugees into a community, you need to meet with community leaders, mayor, councilmen, commissioners, school superintendents, hospitals, anyone that an influx of a refugee group would affect,” Tracy said, explaining the reasons for the law being passed last year.

…Tracy said he “thought it was interesting that we had to codify something in state law to get [the State Department's] attention.”…

Yes that is interesting. Also interesting is why other government refugee program-related regulations and contract requirements are also regularly ignored. World Relief feels free to worship on the public’s nickel, even though its prohibited by a federal regulation, and their ORR partner has ignored our complaint about that practice. Also, the quite minimal “minimum requirements” that the resettlement agencies agree to meet in the refugee program are regularly flouted, and the State Department refugee office does not enforce those requirements or penalize the resettlement contractors. In practice this does not seem to have been working well for decades — the resettlement contractors just continue to violate regulations and contract requirements year after year. (What does that say about the public/private partnership philosophy in which contractors are put on pedestals and government oversight agencies don’t exercise much authority?)

…Tracy explained he also had questions for Robinson, talking about the local unemployment rate and about refugees getting on state assisted benefits, while the State Department discussed “sustainability” of the refugees. Supposedly, the refugees have 90 days to become sustainable in this country, Tracy said.

“The question we had for them was ‘what’s the definition of sustainability,’” Tracy said. “We had a good discussion about it.”…

Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if they shared that discussion with the public? After all, this is a publicly run and funded humanitarian program. The State Department refugee office apparently gave advance notice to all so-called “stakeholders”, except for the last minute notice to the public and press.

…”It was a pretty high level meeting,” Tracy said. “They were very concerned who was going to be in the meeting, it was very interesting.”

Tracy said that the State Department wanted to clarify that they had no control over secondary migration, when refugees leave the city they were initially settled in and go elsewhere.

The senator said that’s why the law is “so important, because we’re bringing refugees into Tennessee, the majority of them settle in Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis and Chattanooga,” but they eventually migrate to smaller towns…

So, what the state senator doesn’t seem to understand is that, under the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, Shelbyville and other localities will not be able to request any local moratoriums on refugee resettlement since no one is resettling refugees to those places. Refugees are moving to Shelbyville on their own for meatpacking industry jobs, in what is known as “secondary migration”.

…”It was interesting that they (the State Department) would travel to Tennessee to talk about the legislation that we passed last year and I really take it as a compliment,” Tracy said Friday. “I think they were already supposed to be doing that, and in Tennessee, they have to be doing that now.” Read more here

I guess I’d like to hear the State Department’s version of what was said at thispretty high level meeting”, but since they treat refugee resettlement as a secret program, which seems only to guard against accountability, I won’t hold my breath.

***UPDATE*** — While the public had to sit outside the meeting one of the so-called “stakeholders” invited to the meeting was the lobbyist Jennifer Murphy of the Catholic Public Policy Commission of Tennessee.

Posted in State Department, ORR, World Relief, Cooperative Agreement, Somali, Assistant Secretary of the PRM, meatpacking industry, public/private partnership, Tennessee, openess and transparency in government, secondary migration, refugee, local officials, failure to notify, capacity, Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, legislation, Murfreesboro/Shelbyville | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Acting Assistant Secretary Robinson Says TN’s New Refugee Law Already Part Of Federal Law

Posted by Christopher Coen on February 10, 2012

Does left hand know what right hand does?

According to an article from Chattanooga, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) David M. Robinson claims that Tennessee’s new law – that mandates refugee resettlement agencies to report quarterly to local governments and allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement – is already part of federal law. He must be referring to the part of the Tennessee that deals with quarterly reporting since there is no federal law about moratoriums. The “federal law” he refers to is actually a ORR regulation, as well as required via the State Department refugee contracts. Robinson claims he believes that the State Department (and/or their contractors?) have always abided by this regulation. Yet, they have not always abided by it, hence Tennessee’s claimed need to codify the requirement via state law. In New Hampshire the state refugee coordinator went so far as to claim that she could not require a refugee resettlement agency to consult with a city about its work, even though the ORR regulation required her, as the state refugee coordinator, to conduct quarterly meetings between the resettlement agencies and state and local governments. So, it seems that there is a disconnect between what the government oversight agencies believe that they do, and what actually happens. An article about Robinson’s visit is found in the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

A top U.S. State Department official, who spent two days in Tennessee discussing the state’s refugee resettlement program, said he wants to give communities a “louder voice in the process.”

“We believe it’s in the best interest of the United States that we pursue this program, but also we need to recognize the community nature of the program,” David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, Migration, said during a news conference Thursday.

Robinson has been in the state for a two-day visit with community members, local government officials and employers to discuss the resettlement process…

…Tennessee is the first and only state to pass a law that mandates resettlement agencies to report quarterly to local governments and allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement if those agencies overload local resources.

The law was approved last year, but the Tennessee Office for Refugees said no one has applied for the moratorium.

Robinson said that it’s already part of federal law but said Tennessee’s law “makes perfect sense.”

He added, “We believe that’s what we’ve always done,” he said… Read more here

All of this brings another question to my mind: If the new bill in New Hampshire for a proposed one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement is probably unconstitutional – as University of New Hampshire Law professor Albert Scheer told a NH state House committee last week – wouldn’t that be an indication that the part of Tennessee’s law which allows local refugee moratoriums also likely be unconstitutional? Sheer says it is likely unconstitutional because it singles out a particular class of legal residents. He cited a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a California law forbidding indigent residents from other states from settling in California.

Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, capacity, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, legislation, legislation, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, openess and transparency in government, ORR, State Department, Tennessee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

State Dept. Gave One Day Notice Of PRM Acting Assistant Secretary Robinson’s Nashville Visit

Posted by Christopher Coen on February 9, 2012

The State Department’s refugee office is going about its usual way of doing business by having yet another local program visit, this time in Nashville, with local resettlement contractors and their hand-selected refugee clients (this ensures that no one utters any free-spirited or critical comments about the local resettlement contractors, or their government oversight friends). Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) David M. Robinson is in Nashville February 8-9 (reminds me of the former Assistant Secretary’s — Eric P. Schwartz’s — trips to Salt Lake City and Portland and Denver and Phoenix). Robinson answered a few questions two weeks ago during an online live chat. The PRM put out a press release with only 24 hours or less to go before this Nashville visit – apparently in an attempt to keep away all save for insiders.

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

February 7, 2012

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) David M. Robinson will travel from February 8-9, 2012 to Nashville, Tennessee to meet with resettled refugees, refugee resettlement agencies, local and state government officials, and other community members involved in the resettlement of refugees…

If you wish to attend, please contact [the] PRM’s Public Affairs Advisor…by close of business on February 8. Read more here

Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, democracy, Nashville, public/private partnership | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Live Chat with State Dept.’s PRM Acting Assistant Secretary David Robinson

Posted by Christopher Coen on January 24, 2012

Today the State Department’s PRM Bureau had a live chat session on their Facebook page with Acting Assistant Secretary David Robinson. This was my question:

Christopher Coen’s question: Why are Office of Admissions’ inspections of refugee resettlement contractors not unannounced, and why are there no penalties for the contractors’ failure to meet Cooperative Agreement contract requirements?

U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration: PRM announces visits up to two weeks in advance, and home visits two days in advance. Just so you know, PRM requires corrective actions that correspond with the level of non-compliance. This could include stopping placement of refugees through a particular contractor. In fact, this year, monitoring findings factored into the Cooperative Agreement awards. In general, we view our auditing and monitoring and evaluation programs as cooperative tools to correct mistakes and respond to inadequacies. In the rare instances we find faults too serious to fix, we take immediate action, including the possible removal of an organization from our work.

Don’t unannounced inspections reveal how a place really operates? Announced inspections allow the refugee resettlement contractors to make preparations (clean things up?). If you read through some of the State Department monitoring reports you will see that the contractors’ refugee case notes (part of the record that the monitors use to test the contractors’ quality of services) often do not correspond to the services and material items that the refugees say that the agencies gave them. The case notes also sometimes do not conform to what the monitors find in other parts of the records, and in their interviews with a small sample of refugees (3-4 refugee cases). Announced inspections allow for altering of the records (monitoring reports show the use of white-out liquid, and pro forma individual refugee self-sufficiency plans). Computerized case management notes can make the possible alteration of records difficult to detect.

The other problem is how rare these inspections are – once in ten years or more, according to the results of our monitoring reports FOIA requests (once in five according to a senior State Department official I spoke with in 2010 who refused to speak for attribution).

It’s good to see that State Department monitoring findings are finally being factored into the Cooperative Agreement awards (the State Department’s non-competitive grants to the private resettlement contractors), yet how are they being factored in? Why are their no penalties for non-compliance with contract requirements other than the rarely used temporary suspension or removal of an “affiliate” — a subcontractor — resettlement agency?

A friend of our group asked the following question:

U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration: I want to repost and answer Cevon Anderson’s earlier question.

Have you performed any financial audits of the numerous resettlement agencies you have found to be not in compliance with State Department cooperative agreement requirements?

U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration: Thanks for your question, Cevon. As government officials and taxpayers, we believe strongly that we must be good stewards of our tax dollars. We regularly monitor programs, and our cooperative agreements require quarterly financial status reports and a final financial report be submitted to the Bureau’s Office of the Comptroller. In addition, recipients of our financing must have an appropriate audit performed by independent public accountants in accordance with U.S. Government Auditing standards. That audit must include confirmation that the reported quarterly charges were actually incurred in the amounts and during the periods specified and that the reported charges were not based on average costs, estimates, or predetermined fees.

U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration: Finally, we implement an aggressive monitoring and evaluation program throughout the year, visiting dozens of resettlement sites around the country and our facilities overseas to assure compliance with our standards, rules and regulations.

Yet, when State Department monitors primarily rely on contractors’ own written records as proof of compliance with basic requirements of the State Department contracts (services to refugees), aren’t those records the basis that the audits rest upon? These resettlement contractors’ records are also sometimes left incomplete.

It’s also hard for me to think of these monitoring inspections as “aggressive” when they are so rare, and there are no penalties for non-compliance (again, other than the very rare suspension or termination of a refugee resettlement contractor). How does the State Department “assure compliance with…standards, rules and regulations” when these once-in-5-to-10 years-or-more-inspections show that the contractors quite regularly are not even complying with the “minimum” standards of the contracts? Other federal government agencies make contractors give back contract money when there is proof of lack of contract compliance. Isn’t that the minimum we should expect? Why would private resettlement contractors have any incentive to prevent continuing and future problems in their services when there are no teeth in the government oversight? That just seems like management 101 to me.

Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Cooperative Agreement, funding, neglect, openess and transparency in government, public/private partnership, State Department | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IRC’s Ann Richard nominated to run State Department’s refugee program

Posted by Christopher Coen on November 5, 2011

President Obama has nominated Anne Richard for assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. The revolving door between the federal government oversight agencies and their private contractors never seems to stop. A blurb in Foreign Policy announces the nomination:

…Obama…nominated Anne Richard for assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, replacing Eric Schwartz. Richard is currently vice president of government relations and advocacy for the International Rescue Committee. From 1999 to 2001, she was director of the office of resources, plans and policy at the State Department. From 1997 to 1999, she was deputy chief financial officer of the Peace Corps.

Posted in Ann Richard, Assistant Secretary of the PRM, IRC, Obama administration, PRM, State Department | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Reflections on PRM’s first installment of Conversations with America

Posted by Christopher Coen on July 15, 2011

 A reader named Louise submitted the following comment to the post about the State Department Assistant Secretary Eric Schwartz’s June 14, 2011 interview of George Rupp, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. The interview is part of a PRM series of conversations with leaders of various NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) titled Conversations with America.

The video is found on the State Department’s blog.

I am profoundly disappointed in this so-called Conversation with America.  There was nothing in this “conversation” but the most basic general information that almost anybody interested in listening in would already know, especially those of us volunteer-advocates who have tried to find solutions for problems
refugees face once they arrive in the United States. There was absolutely no discussion about basic operating issues, again particularly within the U.S. (I submitted questions on this topic that never saw the light of day), that most of us struggle with daily in trying to help refugees whose resettlement agencies should be helping them but aren’t.

I was struck by the content imbalance of the conversation: Mr. Schwartz and Dr. Rupp spoke virtually exclusively about their activities outside the U.S. while the questions presented were almost exclusively about issues within the U.S. It is as if Mr. Schwartz, Dr. Rupp and even the narrator think the game is over once a refugee actually reaches the U.S. They ignore the reality, and the hypocrisy it represents, that often the very persecution and neglect that existed in the countries refugees fled exist in the U.S. It’s not that life is “tough” in the U.S. for many – it’s that life approaches impossible in the U.S., most especially for refugees placed with an underperforming local community resettlement agency – and in all too many cases even an abusive and neglectful one.

Refugees in failed placement face inadequate and/or unsafe housing, food shortages, completely useless English classes, exploitation by placement with practically any employer no matter how inappropriate or unsafe, inappropriate or nonexistent referrals for health care and constant caseworker voice mail turned on when they have problems. They are not given handbooks and their orientations are in English only. There are no warnings about how to be safe in their communities. There is no instruction about how to get emergency help, and there are rarely culturally informed caseworkers. By contrast, the outstanding local resettlement agencies are like the bright sunshine after a storm and are indeed safe and nurturing havens for refugees – but they are few in my experience.

There is obviously no question that refugees have the capacity to deal with a tough life and deprivation or they wouldn’t have made it through the refugee resettlement process alive. However, the all-to-frequent failure of the private and public agencies in this country that are charged with resettlement to give them the most basic tools to adapt is not only a moral disgrace but the failure to utilize people who would be very productive for our society if they only get a chance. Luckily for the U.S. some refugees are so tough they thrive despite their resettlement agencies’ failures. For the refugees lucky enough to be placed with an outstanding local resettlement agency life is indeed tough – but the possibility of a successful life is increased exponentially.

The conversation did at least make me realize several things: Mr. Schwartz is more interested in Burma than Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan – not that what is happening in Burma isn’t serious, but it seems Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan would have warranted at least a mention since their refugees number in the millions. Mr. Schwartz’s and Dr. Rupp’s loci and primary interests outside the United States might explain the abysmal lack of supervision and oversight of the local resettlement agencies in the U.S. I have observed not even the most rudimentary calling to account by either the State Department or the local agency’s own national office over the egregious problems some of these agencies have caused. It seems, then, the weak oversight of local U.S. resettlement agencies is no accident because
both the national resettlement agencies and the Department of State either don’t care about, or don’t care to take the time to care about, resettlement failures inside the U.S. and would rather focus on happenings outside the U.S. They need to count both situations equally important.

Additionally, while Mr. Schwartz may be proud that we get some sort of progress for “a pittance,” I believe more than a pittance should be devoted to relieving human suffering abroad, many times caused, facilitated or ignored by the U.S. If only “a pittance” is spent outside the U.S., one can only imagine what miniscule amount is spent within the U.S. However even in the face of inadequate funding, the kind of refugee assistance failure/abuses I have seen could have, and can be, prevented. It simply takes workers who care to do their jobs in more than the most cursory of ways and leadership that insists on it and has the vision to think of innovative solutions.

Finally, it is almost laughable – were it not so indicative
of either territoriality or ignorance – that Mr. Schwartz and Dr. Rupp propose a study of the health care needs of refugees. It seems to me a colossal waste of money. There is an obvious and existing solution – called the U.S. public health service system. Poor people have been using it for a long time now. It’s hard to think there is any health problem the free clinics and health departments haven’t encountered.

I have written this as one more attempt to encourage Mr. Schwartz and Dr. Rupp to reconsider some of their ideas and conclusions about how the refugee resettlement system is working. I am trying to encourage some real systemic changes that only people like them can make, so I hope if they read this they will take it to heart and do some investigating. Not all improvements require money. I suggest if future conversations with America are going to be along the same path, tone, and superficiality as this one, however, that Mr. Schwartz spend his time doing something more productive.

Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), IRC, PRM, State Department | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Iraqi SIVs trapped as American military readies for pullout

Posted by Christopher Coen on July 13, 2011

Iraqis who worked for the US government and its contractors, and  therefore whom are eligible for the special immigrant visa, are finding themselves still trapped in Iraq as the American military readies for a pullout at the end of this year. During nearly the past four years, however, the US government has issued only about 7,000 special immigrant visas to eligible Iraqis – in a program that allotted 25,000 slots over five years. According to an article in The Ledger Iraqis who worked for the government are in fear of their lives as the clock ticks down.  

BAGHDAD — Terrorism fears in the United States are all but halting visas for Iraqis, even those who risked their lives aiding the American war effort, making them especially vulnerable ahead of the planned American military withdrawal…

Congress required the Pentagon and the Departments of State and Homeland Security to draft a plan to expedite visas for the most pressing cases, should insurgents threaten those left behind after the military leaves, and set a deadline of May that was not met.

Meanwhile, neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has met the targets set by Congress several years for issuing special immigrant visas.

The numbers are stark: beginning in 2008, Congress expanded the special immigrant visa program to allot 25,000 slots over five years. After nearly four years, the government has issued about 7,000.

Mr. Johnson said the impetus for the legislation was to avoid a huge refugee crisis like the one after the pullout from Vietnam. In 2006, after British forces pulled out of Basra, the southern Iraqi port city, interpreters were rounded up and killed.

In an interview in Baghdad in May, Eric P. Schwartz, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, said the administration would take care of the Iraqis who had assisted the American forces. “We feel that we are prepared to deal with any variety of contingencies,” he said… Read more here

In the meantime Mr. Schwartz has announced his resignation, and will be riding the revolving door back into the private sphere.

Note: The article incorrectly states that the new security clearances are the result of two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky whom authorities alleged recently, were conducting terrorism planning. In fact, the federal government instigated the enhanced security checks last October.

Posted in Dept of Homeland Security, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), Iraqi, Obama administration, SIV (Special Immigrant Visa) immigrants, State Department | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

State Dept. PRM’s Assistant Secretary and IRC’s George Rupp congratulate each other

Posted by Christopher Coen on June 14, 2011

I submitted a question for George Rupp, president and CEO of the IRC, for his interview today by the PRM’s Assistant Secretary Eric Schwartz.

“Why does the IRC partner with local churches in their attempts to convert Bhutanese refugees to Christianity, for example, IRC’s partnership with The Word at Southern Hills church in Abilene, Texas?”

Unfortunately this comment seems to have magically disappeared from the list of submitted questions (funny how that works). Yet, I base the question on a news article from Abilene that I linked to in January. Personally I think that these refugees’ Hindu and Buddhist beliefs are serving them just fine and I don’t understand why our government and its contractors, therefore we as a society, are partnering to give these new Americans a new religion, which they haven’t requested.

So then I submitted another question, which this time they actually posted:

“A 2007 State Department PRM monitoring report for the IRC office in Baltimore indicates that the IRC and another resettlement contractor frequently placed refugees into an East Baltimore apartment complex that had evidence of questionable maintenance and security standards (housing that is safe, sanitary, and in good repair is supposedly a State Department refugee contract requirement). Monitors also noted that the IRC had failed to give a three-member Meskhetian Turk refugee family a crib and other supplies for their infant son. I note, again, that these items are listed as “minimum” required items in the State Department contracts. Why does the IRC fail to meet so-called “minimum requirements” of their obligations to refugees in the public/private partnership?”

The State Department did not select this question for use in the interview — of course — yet this question was also based on a document – one of the State Department’s own monitoring reports –  so it’s not like I just make this stuff up. Again the State Department doesn’t want to discuss the issue.

I think there’s an obvious problem here when our government feels free to filter out substantive questions that it may not feel comfortable with, or which may not convey the message it wishes to control, but isn’t the supposed intent of our constitutional democracy to allow public input? I think we need to be concerned when a part of our US Department of State feels free to disregard that fundamental principle.

Posted in State Department, PRM, Nepali Bhutanese, Meskhetian Turks (Ahiska
Turk), Christian, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), Assistant Secretary of the PRM, churches, neglect, housing, substandard, household items, missing or broken, public/private partnership, furnishings, lack of, openess and transparency in government, children, Abilene, Buddhist, Hindu, Baltimore | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers