[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
From 2018 and 2024, the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D.C. arranged for the ‘resettlement’ of 6,299 ‘refugees’ in Maryland. Nearly 1 in 5 of them came from the Islamic terror state of Afghanistan and 1 in 10 came from the equally violent and dangerous terrorist state of Syria. Nearly 70% spoke no English. The second most common language was Arabic.
However in Washington D.C., once part of the state and likely to be part of it again if retrocession reform advocates get their way, only 73 ‘refugees’ were resettled in 6 years.
The Immigration Research Initiative listed an even smaller number in D.C. of 66 in ten years.
There is no information on those lucky 73 or 66.
D.C. is small, but Vermont, which has an even smaller population, had 1,260 ‘refugees’ inflicted on it. 1 in 10 were from Afghanistan. 77% don’t speak English. North Dakota was plagued with over 1,000 ‘refugees’ including the usual assortment of Afghans, Somalis, and Venezuelans.
Even Alaska was saddled with resettling over 400 refugees (the Afghans and Somalis couldn’t make it, only the Ukrainians could apparently handle the bitter Alaskan winter.)
Why doesn’t the capital of refugee resettlement want to take in refugees?
Washington D.C. has been the hub for resettling migrants, some pretending to be ‘refugees’ around the country, yet of the 288,709 ‘refugees’ forced on Americans in big cities and rural towns alike, only 73 were consigned to D.C.
Some people might argue that housing in D.C. is too expensive for everyone except a small elite, but no one was proposing to resettle Afghans and Somalis in Georgetown mansions (not that there wouldn’t be a certain amount of justice to it). Despite being a nexus of wealth for government contractors, lobbyists and the well-connected, 1 in 7 people in D.C. live under the poverty line. And nearly 50,000 people in D.C. already live in subsidized housing.
There is no reason that the ‘refugees’ couldn’t have been placed in D.C. low-income housing the way that they have been all over the country (occupying space meant for America’s poor.)
Nor is D.C. unready to take in the ‘wretched refuse’ yearning to bomb marathons.
Indeed, the D.C. government maintains the usual ‘refugee office’ contracted out, as usual, to Catholic Charities and offers cash assistance and social services. Lutheran Social Services runs an operation there. The Office of Refugee Resettlement claims to have dealt with only 261 ‘refugees’ in D.C. in the last financial year and there’s little sign that they actually stayed.
When you go to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, every state listing links to a collection of local resources. The D.C.directory page mysteriously links only to “Page Not Found.”
Or maybe not so mysteriously after all.
D.C. is the hub for refugee resettlement. This is where the various federal agencies, the refugee organizations, the resettlers, the lobbyists and politicians collude to flood America. But they don’t want that sort of thing where they live and work. It’s fine for a small town in Georgia or Ohio to suddenly have to absorb a few hundred invaders with virulent diseases and agendas, to find interpreters and keep their daughters locked up, but it’s a different matter in D.C.
When 3,000 illegal aliens were dumped in Lockland, Ohio, a village of 3,400, the locals were told to welcome them and keep quiet or be accused of racism. All the while D.C., at 200 times Lockland’s size, was fulfilling its obligation by taking in not thousands or hundreds, but dozens.
The minimal refugee resettlement in D.C. reveals that the people behind the program know that it’s destructive and they don’t want to deal with it in their own homes, cities and communities.
The very people responsible for the retreat from Afghanistan and thenbringing in over 100,000 Afghans to this country did not actually want to live next door to them. And considering the track record of crimes, including murders and stabbings, committed by the Afghans, who can blame them. The trouble is that they want us to live next door to them. And we don’t get a ‘say’ in it.
Refugee resettlement has been a lucrative business and a means of shifting political demographics. That’s why red states in particular were targeted for ‘resettlement’. But like the men who build toxic waste dumps and lunatic asylums somewhere else, they know that the business they’re in is dirty, ugly and dangerous, and they don’t want it close to home.
D.C. and the Vatican both proclaim how important refugee resettlement is, but they don’t actually want to house the refugees. What they do is lecture everyone else about their supreme moral duty of opening their doors to those who want to kill them. Like the celebrity environmentalists who fly jet planes to warn about the terrible environmental impact of traveling by jet, their hypocrisy reveals that they don’t really believe any of what they preach to us.
The D.C. politicians who made a point of visiting murderers, rapists and gang members in ICE detention facilities didn’t actually volunteer to bring any of the ‘poor dears’ home with them. AOC may have cried over an ICE parking lot, but she’s not inviting cartel thugs into her apartment. And the rest of D.C. isn’t interested in sharing the fate of Lockland, Ohio.
Refugee resettlement, like police defunding and cutting back on heating in the winter, is for other people. That’s why Washington D.C. resettled ‘refugees’ in every other possible place.
Even in Alaska. Just not in D.C.