Somalia-Bantu Refugees to find New Lives in the United States

Department of State ^ | 02/05/03 | Department of State

[Copernicus]

IIP Home | Africa Issues	Friday 7 February 2003

Fact Sheet: Somali-Bantu Refugees to Find New Lives in United States

About 12,000 will be vetted for resettlement in 50 U.S. towns

The first Somali Bantu refugees will arrive in the United States in the spring of 2003 to begin new lives, according to a Fact Sheet released by the U.S. Department of State February 5. The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has attempted for many years to find permanent resettlement sites for them.

Approximately 12,000 refugees under consideration for admission to the U.S. spent most of the past decade in camps along the dangerous Somali-Kenyan border. After rigorous security and physical examinations, those accepted for resettlement will be placed in extended family groups in up to 50 cities and towns across the United States throughout 2003 and 2004.

Following is the text of the Fact Sheet:

(begin fact sheet)

Fact Sheet

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration

Washington, DC

February 5, 2003

Somali Bantu Refugees

In the spring of 2003, the first Somali Bantu refugees will arrive in the United States to begin new lives. This group of approximately 12,000 refugees under consideration for admission to the U.S. has spent most of the past decade languishing in camps along the dangerous Somali-Kenyan border. Descendants of slaves taken from Tanzania and northern Mozambique in the late nineteenth century to the southern Somali coast, the Bantu have remained a persecuted minority in Somalia and cannot return to the homes they fled there.

For many years, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) sought a place of safe asylum where the Bantu could permanently resettle. Kenya, which struggles to meet the needs of its own population as well as the hundreds of thousands of refugees it hosts, was unable to provide permanent refuge. In 2000, the United State agreed to consider the group for resettlement in the United States.

After being moved from the border to a safer and more accessible site in Kenya, the refugees will undergo interviews with officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine if they are eligible for admission into the United States as refugees. In addition, rigorous security checks and medical examinations will be performed on all applicants before they are approved for resettlement. The Bantu will also be provided with literacy training and an extended program of cultural orientation in Kenya before arriving in the United States. They will be placed in extended family groups in up to fifty cities and towns across the United States throughout 2003 and 2004.

Upon arrival in the U.S., each Bantu family will be assigned to one of the ten voluntary agencies under cooperative agreement with the Department of State to provide reception and placement services. These agencies are Church World Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Ethiopian Community Development Council, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Iowa Bureau of Refugee Programs, Immigration and Refugee Services of America, International Rescue Committee, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and World Relief Refugee Services. They will assist with basic immediate needs such as housing, furniture, clothing, food, and referrals to employment, ESL, and other services. In addition, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service s Office of Refugee Resettlement provides funding to the states and voluntary agencies for longer-term programs for refugees.

For more information on the Somali Bantu, see the fact sheet on the Bantu on the Cultural Orientation website operated by the Center for Applied Linguistics: www.culturalorientation.net.

(end fact sheet)

---

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Office of International Information Programs (usinfo.state.gov). Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

IIP Home | Index to This Site | Webmaster | Search This Site | Archives | U.S. Department of State

[jimt]

Luis, there's a big difference between immigrants helped by willing residents and immigrants helped by tax dollars, which are extracted by force.

In one case it's being compassionate, in the other it's being compassionate with other people's money.

I believe that's the point Copernicus is trying to make.

I have nothing against immigrants, they're good for our country. I have everything against people who come here to make a living out of welfare, who never stand on their own feet without a government prop.

We don't need the latter.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...which are extracted by force."

In other words, you object to the U.S. Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Copernicus's point is quite clear, he argues that the government does not have the constitutional authority to do what they are doing here, my point is that he is wrong.

I have provided ample evidence supporting my argument.

If he objects in principle to this, which is what he seems to be doing based on the fact that he's digging his heels deep into a libertarian argument, he needs to state this, and not take the usual road of interpreting the Constitution when a literal reading advances the point, or arguing the "spirit" of it when all else fails.

Not only does the Constitution establish that Taxes can be imposed and collected by the government, but a Constitutional Amendment does as well. In effect, he's arguing that the U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional.

The Constitution also clearly charges Congress with creating "...all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Seems quite clear to me.

[jimt]

The Constitution certainly allows them to tax us, but the question is what's legitimate for them to spend it on.

The link here explains it far better than I can, from a perspective closer to our country's founding.

Colonel David Crockett: "Not Yours To Give"

[Luis Gonzalez]

We're specifically discussing immigrants here, and once again, the Constitution clearly charges Congress with the regulation of immigration, that combined with article 18, gives the Federal government the constitutional right to do what they are doing in respect to immigration.

[jimt]

We're specifically discussing immigrants here, and once again, the Constitution clearly charges Congress with the regulation of immigration, that combined with article 18, gives the Federal government the constitutional right to do what they are doing in respect to immigration.

By that logic they have the right to confiscate 100% of your income, condemn all your property, and hand it out to whoever they decide to import. If you don't think that's true, please tell me why not.

I know that's the reductio ad absurdum but it logically follows.

Did you read the Colonel Crockett article?

He was roundly criticized by one of his constituents for appropriating public monies for philanthropic purposes.

Philanthropic endeavors should be the domain of charity organizations, not goobermints who can tax you into the poorhouse with their benevolence. And they're doing it right now. Texas will have a $12 billion dollar budget shortfall because of giveaway programs.

[jimt]

"...which are extracted by force."

In other words, you object to the U.S. Constitution.

No, I'm talking about how the money is collected. If you don't think it's extracted by force, try not paying taxes.

[dennisw]

Since 1965 immigration has been  85% from 3rd world nations. If you include illegal immigration it's even worse. For the next 30 years the numbers should be reversed. Make the numbers 70% from East and West Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan etc. and 30% from the 3rd world but only educated ones who can speak English. All prospective immigrants must know at least basic English and musts sign a promise to take English courses to take them up to 6th grade level or be expelled.

There are huge numbers in  East Europe that would love to immigrate here. Give them a shot! Let white farmers from Zimbabwe come here!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I know that's the reductio ad absurdum but it logically follows."

That sentence makes no sense, how one thing can be both?.

[dirtboy]

For the next 30 years the numbers should be reversed. Make the numbers 70% from East and West Europe, Australia, Canada,

Think about this for a minute. The Constitution is a direct descendent from the Magna Carta - but since colonial times, Britain has become a stagnant socialist backwater where it is now illegal to defend yourself against crime. Europe over the last 150 years has given us marxism and fascism, and now for the most part is a socialist hell that hates all things American. I think we should be more concerned with allowing in people who think like the Founders instead of people who just look like them.

[Middle Man]

"What exactly is it about these people that you object to...?"

There is no written or unwritten law that says America has to keep absorbing millions of immigrants without let-up.

And the bit about "voluntary agencies" handling the influx is garbage. This tidal wave is straining the finite resources of the American taxpayer, because these immigrants come fully expecting (nay, demanding) to use public and private services that have been built up over generations to which they have contributed nothing.

[DeathfromBelow]

Just "them"? I object having to support anyone, I don't care whether they're homegrown or not.

"Your problem is something else altogether."

No your self-righteous attitude is something else. You are obviously perceiving racism behind every post. I'm sure if you respond it will be along the same tired worn out DemocRat line. It's for the "Children". Barbara Striesand

But you know you may just reach your goal. Since all these immigrants qualify for SSI (another Demo drain on the Taxpayer), then Social Security will be bankrupt that much sooner. Then everyone can blame Bush or the Repubs.

Who has the hidden agenda?

[jimt]

That sentence makes no sense, how one thing can be both?.

A "reductio ad absurdum" means taking things to their extreme logical ends. The "absurdum" part comes from the fact that such cases are often absurd - so the original statement needs some limitation.

In this case, you said the government has the power to tax (it does) and the power to regulate immigration (it does). But these new feel-good programs of wholesale importation of people who will immediately go on public assistance are just that, relatively new. The problem is that there's a government program for virtually every need someone might have, and our government is bringing in large numbers of Somali people who need them all.

Currently our government is allowing huge numbers of folks to come here illegally - against its own rules. Because of our giveaway welfare programs, the influx of people is causing massive cost increases for government at all levels.

This means they have to take more from the people who pay for those programs.

So by not enforcing the law, they increase the burden on the law-abiding. That's clearly immoral - and illegal, by definition.

The Somali importation program is another example of good intentions run amuck.

[dennisw]

I think we should be more concerned with allowing in people who think like the Founders instead of people who just look like them.

So the 85% 3rd worlders we have admitted since 1965 are these people you mention? I doubt it. 3rd world nations specialize in authoritarian kleptocracies and teach their citizens to accept dictators. I rather take my chances with people who look like me. It's only fair since immigration from the 3rd world has dominated since Kenney's immigration bill of 1965.

Many East Europeans immigrate to Canada since their immigration policies are skills based. Many would rather immigrate here but can't due to 3rd world dominance in US immigration policies.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I understand what "reductio ad absurdum" means, I don't understand how it can be argued that it is the logical conclusion to anything.

I don't have much time, but let me leave you with a thought: yes, "they" (the government) can make the argument that the constitution does not restrict them from taking 100% of our money, and unless you can show me where it plainly and clearly states that, at least as plainly and clearly as it states that Congress can lay and collect taxes, a strict reading of the constitution is on "their" side.

The Constitution was never meant to be the guardian of our Republic, we are. The Constitution can't DO anything, we can.

We are the guardians of our Freedom, the Constitution is our shield, and our vote is our weapon.

As long as we continue to vote into office politicians who believe in taking more and more of our money for redistribution, we are screwed.

"They" is us because we put "them" in office.

"A Republic, if you can keep it" was addressed to us.

We, the people.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"What exactly is it about these people that you object to dennis?"-LG

"I rather take my chances with people who look like me."-dw

Thanks for finally answering my question.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's the immigrants who will save the Ponzi scheme otherwise known as Social Security.

Read and educate yourself.

http://www.prb.org/Content/ContentGroups/Report/025/ReportonAmericaGovtSpendng.pdf

[dennisw]

"I rather take my chances with people who look like me."-dw

Thanks for finally answering my question.

YAWNnnnnnn....zzzzzzzz... Wake me up when you move your family into a Haitian or Black neighborhood. There are plenty to choose from in South Florida. How about a Somali neighborhood? Perhaps I can find one for you.

[dennisw]

It's the immigrants who will save the Ponzi scheme otherwise known as Social Security.

Few freepers believe that lie. You're probably one of five.

[dennisw]

It's the immigrants who will save the Ponzi scheme otherwise known as Social Security.

Actually it's America that saved your a$$. Not the other way around. Your family could have chosen to stay in Cuba.