There is only one state in the Union without a refugee resettlement program–Wyoming. Late last year, the state’s Republican governor, Matt Mead, took some tepid steps toward establishing a public-private partnership to help resettle refugees in the Equality State. Predictably, those efforts were met by fierce resistance, both from inside and outside the state.
First, a bit of background. The United States accepts more refugees for permanent resettlement than any other country (though many countries temporarily host significantly more refugees than we do). In FY 2012, we accepted 58,238 refugees for resettlement. These refugees came from Bhutan, Burma, Iraq, Somalia and many other countries. With the help of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and various NGOs, the refugees were resettled in 49 states plus the District of Columbia. Some states took many (California: 5,173; Texas: 5,923) and other states took few (Montana and Hawaii: 1 each; Mississippi: 8; Arkansas: 10). Only Wyoming took none.
A former refugee, and now a Wyoming resident and high school math teacher, Bertine Bahige, began a campaign to change the situation and encourage Wyoming to join the rest of the country and establish a refugee resettlement program. As a result of his efforts, in September 2013, the Governor made some preliminary inquiries with HHS about establishing a resettlement program.
But once word got out that Wyoming was considering thinking about possibly creating a resettlement program, hundreds of people called the Governor’s office to express opposition to the plan. In response, a spokesman for the Governor issued a statement, “Wyoming is not setting up a refugee camp…. This is still very preliminary.”
Since its tepid beginnings, the Governor’s inquiry has made zero progress. In its most recent statement, the Governor’s office backed away from any resettlement plan:
“Constituents asked the governor to look into the possibility of a program, and he did that,” [said a spokesperson. Governor] Mead believes any effort to establish a program must be led by community interest. But… “no interested group has offered a recommendation to establish a program to date.”
Of course, the fact that there is no program and there has been no progress in creating a program has done little to assuage the anger of the anti-refugee faction. Last week, a (seemingly small) group called Citizens Protecting Wyoming, held a rally at the state capitol where they expressed their fear that refugees would bring Ebola to Wyoming, take cash from the government, and drain the state of resources.
The key note speaker at the rally was Don Barnett, a fellow at the Washington, DC-based Center for Immigration Studies (“CIS”). In a bit of a non-sequitur, Mr. Barnett claims to have “gained his expertise in immigration and refugee policy during an assignment in the U.S.S.R. while employed with the U.S.I.A. [United States Information Agency].” His organization, CIS, generally favors reduced immigration, and advocates (not always intellectually honestly) to restrict asylum and refugee admissions. Mr. Barnett’s main concern seems to be that the federal government pays charities to help resettle refugees, and he wants to bring this information “out of the shadows.” (I suppose he is less concerned about the private prisons that make Bank by detaining tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants each day). Mr. Barnett is also concerned with fraud in the refugee system. Of course, fraud and costs are legitimate concerns, but so is protecting refugees, and to me, Mr. Barnett’s throw-the-refugee-baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach mischaracterizes and unfairly distorts the life-saving work of the religious charities.
In connection with the rally, Citizens Protecting Wyoming issued a press release, noting that, “The people of Wyoming are caring and generous… Yet that does not mean we are OK with being forced to increase the burden to our health, safety, welfare, medical, community and educational programs via our tax dollars.” Hmm, isn’t giving assistance to people who legitimately need it the very definition of caring and generous? You’d think they could at least be honest about who they are. How about this for their next press release:
While the citizens of Wyoming are generally caring and generous, we here at “Citizens Protecting Wyoming” couldn’t give a damn about disease-carrying, welfare-grubbing foreigners, who probably left their countries just to steal from the American tax payer. And even though the rest of the country does its share to support refugee resettlement, which is an important component of American foreign policy, we’ll let others carry this burden for us. Wyoming is the “Equality State,” and to us, that means we get equal benefits, but we shirk equal responsibility.
I take some comfort from the fact that there was a substantial counter-protest by people who support expanding the refugee resettlement program to Wyoming. In some ways, though, this is all a tempest in a tea pot. I doubt Wyoming would ever accept more than a handful of refugees (although it is a large state, it has a small population), and so in practical terms it wouldn’t mean much one way or the other. However, in symbolic terms, I think it is important. The United States has committed to protect a certain number of refugees each year. This commitment reflects our values as a nation and our position as the leader of the Free World. In fulfilling our commitment, it would be nice to see all 50 states doing their share. So come on Wyoming, we’re all waiting for you to join us. I think you will be glad you did.
I am a Wyoming citizen and I am apposed to bringing the refugees to My state Period !
Many of your fellow Wyomingites disagree with you, often for the same reasons as discussed in this article. Instead of ending conversation with those who disagree (Period!), perhaps engaging with such people will lead to benefits for both sides in the debate.
Wyoming is a generous state when it come to people who want to assimilate and accommodate our culture when arriving. Wyoming citizens were not asked or allowed to comment on the refugee settlement. We found out by accident and when asked the Governor would not answer. It then became a principle that He share openly or we were going to object. By the way when legislators were asked about the proposed program only 3 new anything about it and at least 1/2 of our legislators were asked. Some of those went to Governor Mead and he lied to them by saying there wasn’t anything being considered. In fact we have a letter stating The People Of Wyoming ‘s interest. I find that objectionable. Wyoming it’s in Cheyenne were being placed done the list because Colorado immegrent were moving into town and using a low income housing voucher program. After a year they were taking the vouchers to other states. Fund for which came out of Wyoming coffers. Sorry but that is not okay with a few of is who thing Wyoming citizens deserve to use Wyoming services first.
I also thing the man who wrote this article is all wet and didn’t talk to any of the officers from Citizens Protecting Wyoming. Hummmmm!
Since Wyoming is part of the US, I think it should do its share to help with refugee resettlement. We as a nation have made a decision that helping refugees is in our national interest. Wyoming should do its part. That said, good use of the phrase “all wet.”
I say no to importing other countries poor people. We still have American children still living in poverty and these people want to steal food and housing away from them to give to others, so they can feel good about themselves? I think they hate Americans in poverty.
Wow, Chuck, I am surprised you had time to post three comments here, given all the time you are devoting to helping poor Americans. I guess you are a multi-tasker. Good for you.
Jason,
Unfortunately the people opposed to this program are much louder than those in support. The opposition is simply full of xenophobic rhetoric with little truth. Those of us that are in support try not to engage the fear mongering groups because little will be said to ever change their mind. Those that claim there’s little support here for refugees are simply WRONG. I have witnessed, with my own eyes, the generosity and caring communities of Gillette open up to the small number of refugees we have at this point (because, much to the dismay of the haters, refugees are legally able to come and go as they please, our state borders mean nothing, really). Please check out our facebook page if you’d like to offer support. I will link to this article later when I get home from work! Thank you for bringing some attention to the issue. I wholeheartedly agree that it’s time for Wyoming to step up to the plate, not because we have money (we do!) but because some of the most wonderful, genuine people live here, and I hope the loud ones aren’t given the power that they want. I do believe they are the minority. 🙂
It is often the case that loud angry voices drown out quieter, more thoughtful ones. But I am not surprised to hear this. In my experience, most people – even those who strongly oppose immigration – are very sympathetic to immigrants once they get to know them. Case in point: I have a friend who does conservative fund raising, and he used to work for Pat Buchanan. His fishing buddy was an immigrant who got into some trouble, and he referred the buddy to me. While my friend generally opposes immigration, he wanted to help his friend, and we did ultimately win the case. I think if the opponents of resettlement had an opportunity to meet some of the refugees, they might feel differently about the whole matter. I wish you good luck in your work, Jason PS: After we won the case, my friend sent me an email. He told me, “You did the most important thing a person can do – you made me look good for recommending you.” I appreciate that.
I’m re-posting the following; first it was here, then it wasn’t.
===
In early 2003, when I was living in southern California, I attended a meeting on immigration, citizenship, assimilation, and all that, sponsored by the Claremont Institute and held at Chapman College in Orange, California.
Another attendee was Jan Ting, a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. Upon being introduced to Ting and learning that he’d been Assistant Commissioner of the old INS under the first President Bush, I immediately asked him, “Is it true — what I’ve heard — that 90% of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?” He instantly replied, “95%.”
(Ting is now a fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies. I don’t know if he was back then.)
So I wonder if “Mr. Asylumist” here is aware of **any** of the multifarious scams that **fundamentally** characterize our refugee and asylum programs:
— They’re a meal ticket for a bunch of prominent NGOs, many of whose employees are — ta dum! — refugees and asylees themselves. Almost entirely your federal dollars at work.
— At least during the 1990s, people still in their natal countries (i.e. instead of in refugee camps elsewhere) would be invited to move to the U.S. as refugees. Some accepted but then delayed their moves until “more convenient” times! And some then took vacations back to the countries they were escaping as refugees!!
You can’t make this stuff up. And if you doubt me, all you have to do is recall the wonderful Tsarnaev family and their (partial) departure back to the land they purportedly fled with their lives.
— Then there was the ongoing scam of African refugee “families” that weren’t, learned when DNA testing was applied.
Besides the outright frauds (there are plenty more where those came from), there’s the basic operation of the programs: Once a town accepts refugees, or has them shoved down its throat, the town’s citizens completely lose control. Take the case of Wausau, Wisconsin that Roy Beck wrote about in The Atlantic in 1994 (“The Ordeal of Immigration in Wausau”): Initial acceptance of a few Hmong refugees after the Vietnam war ultimately led to a large influx of Hmong who had originally been re-settled elsewhere in the U.S. — and huge tax burdens on the native-born populace for this gift of diversity. (Useful, terse summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wausau,_Wisconsin#Hmong_population )
You make a number of points, most of which I think are wrong. First, Prof Ting is a well-known opponent of immigration, and unless he references a study (which he can’t), his made-up statistic about refugee fraud is simply not credible. There is no real way to know how much fraud exists (and – if memory serves – he was actually talking about asylum (not refugee) fraud in the Chinese community; this is another matter, and I have written about the problem of fraud in that community previously). Second, obviously most refugees really are refugees – they come from camps in places like Kenya and Jordan. They have fled war and genocide. They are clearly refugees, at least under the lay definition. Finally, your point about NGOs making money off the refugees is a nasty little trope that we often hear about hard-working, caring people who earn far less working for charities than they might in another type of job. Do you have equally insulting things to say about people who help the homeless? Who work for child protective service? Who work with mentally disabled people? How about people who work with veterans? All the organizations that do such work lobby for tax dollars, yet such organizations are rarely accused of scamming the tax payer for profit. While I think it is legitimate to debate the use of tax dollars to help refugees (or for any other purpose), it is not legitimate to denigrate people of good will who are working – and sacrificing – in order to help others. Your argument in that regard is mean-spirited and bears little relationship to reality.
Well, since their is no way to know what’s fraudulent or not, I say keep them out as I really don’t want ISIS terrorists bombing and beheading in my town.
I think the people who want this are just looking for victims to prop up and gain some moral high ground and berate and call those of us names who don’t want it. I think they hate us and want to cause problems. They are Americanphobs or Wyomingaphobs. Sickening.
Greetings Jason,
I disagree with your point of view completely. First, the USA is broke. It makes no sense to borrow money from the Chinese to bring people to the USA. None at all. The USA already has forty-nine States with refugee programs….why is there such a “need” to immerse Wyoming in that disaster? Aren’t 49 States enough? We like our Wyoming culture as is and will endeavor to keep it as such. “Silliness” is spending money that we don’t have to copycat other states now wishing that they had not gotten involved in the business of “refugee resettlement”.
I disagree that the US is broke. We have a large deficit, but we are one of the richest countries on earth. Also, to call refugee resettlement a “disaster” seems a bit overblown. It does cost money, and that is certainly a legitimate concern. However, being a world leader also costs money, and to me at least, being a world leader is more than just asserting military power. It is also taking responsibility for others. Forty nine states have taken some level of responsibility for resettling refugees. I believe Wyoming should do its share. Of course, I am not from Wyoming, but obviously there are people there who feel the same way as me (as mentioned in the blog post), and it is an issue for you all to decide. What I object to is the use of distortions and fear mongering by some opponents of resettlement. The decision is for Wyoming to make, but it should be based on an informed discussed, not hyperbole.
Yeap Wyoming’s decision and we don’t want it, so why you still talking?
For the life of me, I can’t see why we would want to import other countries poor people. We have Americans still in poverty. You want to steal food out of the mouths of American children still living in poverty? You hate American poor people that much? For shame!
[…] We missed this blog post by Dzubow ten days ago (I’m not a regular visitor). But, this morning when I wanted to see what he has to say about the “unaccompanied alien children” issue, I saw this post, entitled: Wyoming, the “Equality State,” Is Anything But. […]
Jason, why would refugees want to resettle in the one state where there is insufficient community support for them? Why not focus on the chance for them in the other states that want them, rather than try to shame Wyoming? I don’t think these kinds of tactics persuade in the direction you seek.
I doubt anything I say will influence Wyoming (would that I were so powerful). However, there are obviously people in Wyoming who support a resettlement program, and when people oppose such a program based on silliness, fear, and intellectual dishonesty (refugee camps in the state, Ebola, etc.), I think they deserve to be called out.