Archive for the ‘International Institute of New Hampshire’ Category
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 21, 2012
After the failure of the effort in New Hampshire to enact a refugee moratorium state law that would allow municipalities to ban new refugees from resettling locally for one year, the local conservative Union Leader newspaper has come out with an editorial calling for a so-called “compromise moratorium”. (Never mind that the proposed law was fatally flawed by singling out a specific group of people and restricting their constitutional right to freedom of movement, and by trying to preempt a federal law that has supremacy.) The editorial staff now says that a compromise would be to “let” refugees resettle to Manchester but ban them from receiving any “city-financed public benefits for two years.”
I find this perplexing because in all the discussions and newspaper articles about the moratorium issue I don’t remember any clear argument having been established that refugees are somehow a burden to city finances. One side of the debate repeated this over and over, I remember, but no evidence was ever offered. Why is this the central concept that they focus on in regard to refugee resettlement? They seem to want to tie together refugees and welfare usage in our minds usage — in this case, the part that is “city-financed”. Yet, is there any real data supporting this concept, or is it just ideologically based without consideration of facts?
According to a July 9, 2011 Op-ed piece in the Concord Monitor by William J. Gillett, chairman of the board of the International Institute of New England refugee resettlement agency, the latest data showed that, “63 percent of refugees in our workforce training program gained employment within 180 days of their arrival.” Then there was the March 16, 2012 article in the Concord Monitor that claimed that a state house floor debate, “focused on the frustration of Manchester officials, who have complained that a flood of non-English speaking refugees had lowered their school test scores and burdened city welfare services.” (emphasis added) Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas also complained that refugee children were lowering local school test results. But what about this welfare thing?
Isn’t most welfare provided at the state level and mostly financed by the federal government? What city benefits is the Union Leader referring to? If you check out the web page for the City of Manchester’s Welfare Department it turns out that the only welfare the website lists is temporary emergency assistance — although there is also mention of a work program and the City’s participation as a screening agency for Manchester Emergency Housing:
The Manchester, NH City Welfare Department provides temporary emergency assistance to city residents for the basic necessities of life when no other resource is available. Assistance is rendered in voucher form only.
The Welfare Department also operates a work program and participates as a screening agency during working hours for Manchester Emergency Housing, a non-profit family shelter… Read more here
The site then directs users to links to the State Division of Health and Human Services for all the typical things that most people think of as “welfare” – Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), child care, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), etc.
So, it seems that the Union Leader is claiming that the City’s welfare burden is essentially the temporary emergency assistance that residents use when they are in a crisis. Is that it? If so, how much could this amount to? Apparently there was a spike in the numbers of refugees needing this assistance back in June 2011, but that was twenty-six families. A July 10, 2011 article in the Union Leader indicated that twenty-six refugee families had recently been in the city welfare office looking for help after a cut off of their state rental assistance. But nowhere else from the past ten months of discussion about the proposed moratorium do I see any other facts about refugees’ City welfare usage.
Furthermore, shouldn’t emergency assistance to residents in any city be based on need, not on what class of people or group that applicants may belong to? Restricting it in such a way would, once again, be unconstitutional. This type of talk about “compromise” is not real or constructive.
Posted in funding, International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire | Tagged: manchester, moratorium, New Hampshire, refugees, resettlement, temporary emergency assistance, welfare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 19, 2012
So ends the strange saga of New Hampshire’s refugee moratorium bill. A state senate committee has recommended sending the bill “off to study”, which in an election year is apparently akin to killing it since it would have to start as a new bill next year. An article in the Nashua Telegraph has the details:
CONCORD – A move to give any city or town the right to seek a one-year ban on accepting any more refugees appears headed to legislative death in the state Senate.
With no debate and little fanfare, the Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee recommended shipping this House-passed measure, HB 1405, which Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has vigorously pursued, off to study.
Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, said the solution lies not in a state law but better communication among community service groups that care for these refugees and the host towns…
…Barnes recommended that the panel study the issue, which in an election year is akin to killing the bill since it would have to start all over as a new bill in 2013… Read more here
Oddly, the Republican chairman of the committee blamed refugee advocates for the lack of promised communication with Manchester’s mayor this past week, even though he had specifically asked the mayor to reach out to the refugee advocates and the mayor had promised he would. Yet, neither side had made an effort. An article at the Concord Monitor explains:
A Senate committee yesterday recommended interim study for a refugee moratorium, but not before its chairman gave refugee advocates a tongue lashing on communication etiquette.
Sen. Jack Barnes, a Kingston Republican, said despite assurances a week ago, Manchester refugee advocates have not tried again in the last seven days to initiate a compromise with Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, who wants the moratorium.
“I don’t appreciate people coming to this committee and saying they are going to do something and then not doing it,” said Barnes of agreements by both sides to work on a compromise. “That, to me, is garbage.”
Reached yesterday after the hearing, the advocates, Manchester immigration lawyer George Bruno and William Gillett of the New England International Institute, offered a slightly different take.
Gillett said the institute’s executive director did call Gatsas, in part to introduce a new Manchester site director. She had not gotten a call back, he said.
And Bruno said he didn’t know there was a deadline to make contact with Gatsas…
…”I might say, I haven’t heard anything from the mayor either,” Bruno said…
…At a hearing on the bill last week, Barnes implored both sides to set aside their differences and renew efforts to establish a working relationship. Both sides agreed.
Knowing his committee was voting on the bill yesterday, Barnes called Gatsas on Monday night to ask whether he had heard from Bruno or Gillett. Gatsas told him he hadn’t, Barnes said yesterday.
Clearly irritated yesterday, Barnes said, “It seems Mr. Bruno and these other groups haven’t given the mayor the courtesy of a phone call.”
Gillett and Bruno said yesterday they remain willing to work with the mayor, and Bruno said he’d reach out to Gatsas when he returns from Italy.
They said they’d take the mayor’s calls, too… Read more here
Posted in International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, moratorium / restriction | Tagged: legislation, manchester, moratorium, New Hampshire, refugees, resettlement | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 12, 2012
After passing the New Hampshire state house one-year refugee moratorium bill, spearheaded by Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, went before a state senate hearing this week. A lawyer with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human services, which oversees refugee resettlement, testified that the bill directs the department to do a number of things that it has no authority or ability to do. A report at New Hampshire Public Radio has this:
A bill that would allow communities to ask for a one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement has made it to a Senate Committee, but critics of the bill are piling up.
This moratorium bill has traveled a winding road to get to the senate.
The house committee that first heard recommended – almost unanimously – to kill it.
The full house then voted nearly two to one to pass it.
Now that it’s being heard by the senate, it’s drawing fresh opposition…
…several leaders from the refugee community…spoke out against the moratorium bill.
Several others at the hearing – including UNH law professor Buzz Scherr – argued that the bill runs afoul of the constitution in a basic way: it tells people where they can, or can’t, live.
Scherr: and that’s what this legislation does, it isolates a particular group of legal residents, political and economic refugees, new to this country, and says for this one year period you can’t come here.
Other opponents testified the bill as drafted would be impossible to implement.
Jennifer Jones is a lawyer with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human services, which oversees refugee resettlement.
Jones: it directs the department of health and human services to do a number of things that we have no authority or ability to do… Read more here
Mayor Gatsas testified that the local refugee resettlement agency doesn’t tell his office each time a refugee arrives. The International Institute of New England, however, pointed out that they tell the schools and health department. (I wonder if this means the Institute does not tell the mayor about the total number of refugees resettled each year? I would find that difficult to understand. The group’s national resettlement affiliate, the USCRI, presents a plan each year to the State Department for how many refugees are resettled in each city.) An article at Manchester’s Union Leader newspaper gives both side’s positions – those of the mayor and of William J. Gillett, chairman of the Institute’s board of directors:
…Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has long urged a moratorium on the resettlement program, saying the city and the refugees need an opportunity to catch their breath so that refugees can be successful.
He blamed much of the problems on the resettlement agencies, which provide support for up to nine months, but leave most refugees unprepared to obtain jobs and become productive, he said.
Gatsas has met with state and federal resettlement officials, as well as the agencies, but believes most of his efforts to slow down the process have “fallen on deaf ears.”…
…“As mayor, I never know when someone is coming to the city of Manchester,” he said.
But William J. Gillett, chairman of the board of directors for the International Institute of New England, the resettlement agency for Manchester, said…There has been a considerable slowing of the number of refugees resettled in Manchester…“The system works, but it’s not perfect,’ he said…
…Committee member Sen. Nancy Stiles, R-Hampton, asked how much notice the city is given when refugees are sent to Manchester, and Gillett said the health department and school district are notified.
“We don’t receive much notice ourselves,” he said, and acknowledged the mayor’s office is not notified as refugees arrive all year long.
Barnes said if the agency and the mayor could get together maybe “some good could come of this.”
Gillett said he has made efforts. Earlier Gatsas said he would continue to reach out to the agency.
Lutheran Social Services also resettles refugees in New Hampshire. Refugees are re-settled in 14 communities throughout the state. University of New Hampshire School of Law professor Albert “Buzz” Scheer told the Senate committee, as he did the House committee, that the bill as proposed is unconstitutional, because it would segregate one class of residents, prevent residents moving from one state to another and cannot supersede federal law that governors the program… Read more here
Although the resettlement agency seems to have made many mistakes, which they have not fully acknowledged, Mayor Gatsas has long shown that he has no intention of compromising. Nevertheless, a state senator wants both sides to just “sit down together”, to work all this out. Either the senator is naive or he wants the public to see that the senate gave each side one last try at reaching compromise. An article at the Concord Monitor newspaper explains:
The chairman of a Senate committee yesterday implored Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas and a refugee settlement agency to resolve their differences and eliminate the need for a proposed moratorium on new refugees that has already passed the House.
“It seems there has been lack of communication, and that seems to be a burr under some people’s saddle,” said Sen. Jack Barnes, a Raymond Republican. “I’d like to get the burr out from underneath the saddle.”
Barnes said to Gatsas, “Will you please try to reach out one more time to these groups?”
Gatsas said he would…
The Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee did not vote on the refugee moratorium bill, which passed the House in March, 190-109. Barnes said he wanted to wait a week to see whether Gatsas and the International Institute of New Hampshire could resolve their differences without legislation… Read more here
Posted in International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, legislation, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire | Tagged: bill, International Institute of New England, legislation, manchester, moratorium, New Hampshire, refugees, resettlement | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on February 3, 2012
A University of New Hampshire Law professor told a state House committee that a bill for a proposed one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement is probably unconstitutional. He said that the moratorium provision raises constitutional questions because it singles out a particular class of legal residents. He contrasted the bill with another that became law in Tennessee last year. A Union Leader article has more
CONCORD — A bill allowing communities to impose a one-year moratorium on refugee resettlements is probably unconstitutional, a law professor told a House committee Thursday.
House Bill 1405 had both its supporters and detractors at a public hearing Thursday before the House Municipal and County Government Committee…
…The bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Laura Pettengill, R-Glen, told the committee the legislation is similar to one passed in Tennessee…
But University of New Hampshire Law professor Albert Scheer told the committee the moratorium provision raises constitutional questions 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.
He also said states cannot pass laws that conflict with the “federal framework.” The refugee resettlement program is under the direction of the State Department.
Scheer said the Tennessee bill did not include the moratorium provision when it finally passed…
…Representatives of Lutheran Social Services of New England and the International Institute of New Hampshire spoke against the bill. Read more here
Posted in International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, Lutheran Social Services of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, State Department, Tennessee | Tagged: bill, International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, Lutheran Social Services of New Hampshire, moratorium, New Hampshire, refugees, resettlement, State Department, unconstitutional | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on January 31, 2012
The site director of the International Institute of New Hampshire put in his resignation this month. His last day was January 15. The resettlement agency has been mired in a battle with local elected officials. A column in the New Hampshire Union Leader notes the resignation:
…AFTER HAVING A TOUGH year going toe-to-toe with Gatsby over refugee policy, Michael Organdy has stepped down from his position as site director at the International Institute of New Hampshire. His last day was Jan. 15, which he announced in an email to the Manchester Health Department. He is being replaced by an interim, Susan Curry, who has worked with Manchester refugees for two years.
The city has also learned that 61 refugees were resettled in Manchester from Oct. 1 through Dec. 31, 2011, including 45 adults and 16 children. All of the new arrivals were from Bhutan… Read column here
The International Institute has an announcement for the open position here. It seems that refugee resettlement services program experience is not required.
Posted in International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire | Tagged: International Institute of New England, International Institute of New Hampshire, manchester, refugees, resettlement, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, USCRI | 2 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on November 26, 2011
An article in the New York Times mentions that the International Institute (a USCRI affiliate) proposed to resettle 300 refugees in Manchester this fiscal year, but that the State Department trimmed that down to 200 while rejecting City officials’ request for a moratorium (only last summer the plan was to resettle 400-600 refugees). William J. Gillett, chairman of the Institute’s board claims that his agency does the best they can within the price constraints they have, and that they would try harder to work with the city.
MANCHESTER, N.H. — This city has long been a resettlement site for refugees, sent here by the State Department for a chance at a better life. ..
…But this year, after decades of taking in refugees, Manchester said, “Enough.”
In a highly unusual move, Mayor Ted Gatsas and the city’s Board of Aldermen asked the State Department in July to halt resettlements here for now…
…The mayor, a Republican who just won a second term, says he has nothing against refugees. His problem is with the International Institute of New England…
…For the International Institute, which has been resettling refugees in New Hampshire for decades, the moratorium request came as a shock, said William J. Gillett, chairman of the agency’s board…
“We did not believe the numbers we were suggesting were in any way inappropriate,” Mr. Gillett said. “We didn’t see any evidence of undue strain on city resources.”
Although refugees are also resettled in other New Hampshire cities, including Concord and Nashua, far more come to Manchester, the largest city in northern New England, because it has more jobs, affordable housing and public transportation.
“It’s one of the most fabulous places in the world to resettle,” said Carolyn Benedict-Drew, the institute’s president and chief executive.
But the institute admits that affordable apartments have sometimes proved unacceptable. In 2009, a bedbug infestation at a former mill building that houses refugees grabbed headlines and raised awareness of the squalid conditions some were living in. Patrick Long, a Democratic alderman who voted for the moratorium, said the institute “just wasn’t there to help” with the bedbug problem, which led to a city task force that came up with recommendations for improving refugee housing, education and other needs. “The apartments they were putting them in were shabby,” he said, “and their employment numbers were misleading.”
On housing, Mr. Gillett said, “We do the best we can within the price constraints we have.”…
…Mr. Bartlett said that after hearing the city’s concerns, his office had decided to send some 200 refugees to Manchester this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, instead of the 300 proposed by the International Institute. While the State Department often tinkers with the numbers proposed by resettlement agencies, he said, “this was probably a more significant reduction than we would normally make.”
A moratorium would make no sense, he said, partly because virtually all refugees scheduled to arrive in Manchester this year have family here and would likely end up in the city even if they were initially sent somewhere else.
Meanwhile, leaders of the International Institute said they would try harder to work with the city. Michael McGandy, who started in March as the institute’s site manager in Manchester, said high staff turnover… had perhaps kept the agency from communicating with the city as much as it should… Read more here
An editorial in the New Hampshire Herald speculated that the real reason for the moratorium request was perhaps the $4 million dollars per year that the City is spending on special needs children (many refugees being in that group due to the language barrier and/or a lack of earlier education). The editorial staff thought that the City may have been trying to save money due to budget problems.
I’m disappointed, however, with Mr. Gillett’s claim – in regard to the squalor that people have found refugees living in – that his organization does the best it can within the price constraints. Its much less a matter of money than it is the nature of the refugee experience and their psychology. Due to their earlier experiences of abuse by authorities in the circumstances they have fled from, most do not trust authority figures. Without help from refugee contractors, such as the Institute and other organizations, many of them will not demand improvements in substandard living conditions. Unfortunately, there are many landlords that will take advantage of that.
Mr. Gillett also claims that the moratorium request came as a shock. What that tells me is that either he was completely out of touch with the worsening relationship with City leaders, or that he was fairly certain that there would be no consequences for that. Neither of those positions would have been in the refugees’ best interests.
I also note that the International Institute of New England’s disingenuous claim on their website that they have “…in partnership with the U.S. Department of State, decreased the number of placements from 300 to 200.”
Posted in housing, housing, substandard, International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, local officials, failure to notify, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, State Department | Tagged: International Institute, manchester, moratorium, New Hampshire, refugees, resettlement, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, USCRI | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on November 25, 2011
Now I understand the timing of Mayor Gatsas of Manchester going ballistic last week. It turns out that the refugee office at the State Department rejected his request for a moratorium of refugee resettlement in Manchester. An editorial in the Concord Monitor mentions the moratorium rejection and criticizes Gatsas’s latest request – for cut-off of certain federal aid (US Dept. of HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement grants) to the entire state:
Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas’s frustration at the strain a steady stream of refugees has placed on city services is understandable. So is his request to the State Department for a one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement to allow his city to improve its ability to meet refugee needs. But Gatsas’s response, when the predictable “no” to a moratorium came from federal authorities, was arrogant and illogical.
He wants …state government..to reject all contracts between the state and agencies that aid resettled refugees. That wouldn’t stop refugees from coming. The number assigned Manchester and other host cities is set by the State Department. But by stopping the already inadequate flow of federal money to assist refugee resettlement, it would place an even greater burden on local taxpayers… Read more here
Posted in funding, International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, ORR, State Department | Tagged: funding, manchester, moratorium, New Hampshire, refugees, resettlement, Ted Gatsas | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on November 15, 2011
Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas seems to have a take no prisoners approach to his ongoing war against the International Institute of New Hampshire. Mr. Gastas is now trying to cut refugee support services statewide. In the past he and another City of Manchester city alderman claimed they were concerned that refugees were not receiving adequate services by the International Institute – which is something that concerns me as well. Yet, how would that square with cutting more services? An article in the Concord Monitor has the story:
Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has been lobbying members of the Executive Council to vote against contracts for agencies that work with resettled refugees.
The contracts allow the Department of Health and Human Services to give federal funds to Lutheran Social Services and the International Institute of New England for work the groups do with refugees resettled in New Hampshire by the U.S. State Department.
Earlier this year, Gatsas - who could not be reached for comment last week – had asked the State Department to stop sending refugees to his city, so officials there could establish better services to help them.
The International Institute works primarily with refugees in Manchester, and has resettled more than 1,380 there. Lutheran Social Services works in Concord, Laconia and Nashua.
The two state contracts with Lutheran Social Services total $175,000, one for school-related services through August 2012, and one for preventive health services through August 2014, according to Health and Human Services Commissioner Nick Toumpas.
The contracts represent about half of Lutheran Social Services’ refugee program budget, Lutheran administrator Amy Marchildon said.
“It’s certainly a concern for us that the mayor of one community would try to exert influence on operations outside of his community,” she said… Read more here
Posted in International Institute of New Hampshire, Lutheran Social Services of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, State Department | Tagged: concord, International Institute, Lutheran social services, manchester, refugees, resettlement, State Department, Ted Gatsas, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, USCRI | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on August 10, 2011
New Hampshire Public Radio’s The Exchange show recently interviewed several of the key players in the refugee moratorium debate, including William J. Gillett, chairman of the board of the International Institute of New England, Pat Long, Alderman from the city of Manchester, and Larry Bartlett, Director of the Office of Admissions; Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration at the U.S. Department of State. Here is a blurb explaining the topic of the program:
From Burundi to Burma, from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, refugees from around the globe have been placed in New Hampshire to start their lives anew. Here they find new freedoms and far less dangers but new challenges as well. Many have to learn English, the American laws, become educated and find work. Federal programs help a lot but so do the cities and towns in which they are placed. Now Manchester wants to put a moratorium on any new refugees resettling here. City officials worry that they currently don’t have enough resources to assist its current residents and with tight budgets getting tighter, the problem could become worse. Today we’ll look at New Hampshire’s current refugee populations, what’s being done to get them settled, the challenges they face and look at both sides of this Manchester moratorium debate. Listen to the program and read more here
A couple of things struck me about what doesn’t make sense in each side’s position. Alderman Pat Long claims the bathtub is full – in terms of Manchester’s ability to accommodate any more refugees – yet when the host asked him for specifics he claimed that new refugee arrivals don’t have an opportunity to “thrive”. But refugees’ first goal is simply to survive, so how would it help by instead leaving them marooned in dangerous conditions in refugee camps simply because they might not thrive here during hard economic times? Long favors a total moratorium on new refugees, so apparently he doesn’t even want to let in that percentage of refugees who become self-sufficient. Why not? Something tells me he’s not fully revealing his motives.
Long also asked why the State Department classifies refugees on publicly subsidized housing or TANF as economically self-sufficient. (I know that early self-sufficiency is the goal, but I’ve never heard it to include those on welfare.) Long also pointed out that due to state cutbacks there were 86 families in Manchester – 36 of them refugee families – who had no way to pay for food or rent in the month of August, and said he has asked the International Institute of New Hampshire, unsuccessfully, for some plan for the City and community groups to come up with to keep new refugee arrivals out of the soup kitchens and off the street.
On the other side of the debate was William J. Gillett, chairman
of the board of the International Institute of New England, and the State Department’s Larry Bartlett. In light of Pat Long asking for a plan to at least feed and house refugees William Gillett ultimately could only state that, “it takes time”.
In addition, Gillett and Bartlett claim that the refugees they’re resettling to Manchester and Concord are only those with ties to the area, e.g. family reunification cases. Yet they also claim that the International Institute bases its annual proposal on the number of refugees they will resettle in the coming year on the local area’s capacity to absorb new refugees. Well, which is it? Both of those answers cannot be true. Or, are they saying that Manchester’s capacity each year is coincidently the exact number of refugees with local ties that need resettlement each year? Not probable. Gillette also explained that the lead paint poisoning of a large number of refugee children seven years ago, as well as the long ongoing bedbug infestation problem, are not “refugee-specific” concerns. True, but resettlement agencies should not place refugees into apartment complexes with these problems, and if the problems later arise, then they should at least help the refugees to work with the landlords to arrive at solutions. With refugees’ struggle with the language barrier, lack of renting experience, and fear of authority, they are more likely to suffer from these problems than other low-income populations.
Posted in Burundian, capacity, economic self-sufficiency, International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, Iraqi, Lutheran Social Services of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, PRM, secondary migration, refugee | Tagged: capacity, concord, International Institute, Larry Bartlett, manchester, moratorium, New Hampshire, Pat Long, refugees, secondary migration, William J. Gillett | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on July 22, 2011
Lavinia Limon, the head of the USCRI national refugee resettlement agency, says that the moratorium on refugee resettlement in Manchester, NH makes no sense, as all the refugees destined to Manchester are family reunion cases, not “free case” refugees (refugees with no ties to the area), so refugees will move to Manchester no matter where the State Department resettle them. Yet, a Manchester city council member and a Quaker organization claim that the refugees are not being taken care of. The World media outlet has more:
…Lavinia Limon heads the U.S. Committee of Refugees and Immigrants, the agency that oversees the contract to resettle people in Manchester. She said people need to understand the only refugees who are being resettled in the city have family there, so a moratorium doesn’t make sense. “We can put those people someplace else. And then they will come there on their own to be with their family. Just like you or I would. So we think it’s better to do it initially and have the funds with their resettlement, rather than put them in Indiana and have them show up two weeks later.”
Everyone from the State Department on down agrees refugees need more resources to get on their feet. But Limon knows, at a time when Congress is embroiled in a nasty debate on paying off the nation’s debt, the refugee issue is way down the totem pole…
and
…William Gillette, who chairs the agency’s board, claims refugees are making new lives here. “Under any definition, the refugees are better here, than they were, where they were coming from,” he said.
But Manchester Alderman Pat Long disagrees. “You know what, that’s a nice sound bite, but I don’t accept that,” Long said. He said that some refugees in the city are living in terrible conditions. He described the bedroom of one nine-year-old boy he visited. “There was a mural on the wall of blood from bed bugs being squashed. It’s lines, there were 200, 500 lines of bed bugs, when he squish it, he would drag it, and there were lines of blood on the guy’s wall. It’s stuck in my head forever.”
Long said Manchester should stop taking in refugees until it’s clear that there are adequate resources for them…
…Maggie Fogarty, a refugee advocate with the American Friends Service Committee. “Refugees are being placed into poverty. There are refugees who have been here five, six, seven years and cannot earn their own income to live independently, which is what they want to do. There are refugees who are passing through the school system with their language needs unattended to. We are not doing a good enough job.”
But Fogarty doesn’t think Manchester should shut the door on refugees… Read more here
If we always use the conditions from which refugees are escaping (horrible) as an excuse for any poor conditions we resettle them into, won’t that always be an excuse for substandard refugee resettlement? I think it’s a copout.
Posted in bed bugs, children, housing, substandard, International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, Nepali Bhutanese, New Hampshire, schools, State Department, USCRI | Tagged: American Friends Service Committee, International Institute, lavinia limon, manchester, Pat Long, Quakers, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, USCRI, William Gillette | Leave a Comment »
Christopher Coen
Melissa Sogard
nancylee1
