This cheap QC Times article seems a shaming exercise rather than lament of the real reasons for an overburdened immigration situation (link below). It was forwarded to us by TN with his description: “Biden success story”. However sardonic the use of “success” his sentiment that Biden owns the problems associated with the Afghan refugee situation is true. Biden bungled the withdrawal of American forces causing far more Afghans to be refugees. Further, every problem associated with resettlement of Afghan refuges into low-cost housing, providing food, medical care, job placement are greatly exacerbated by Biden and the Left’s virtual open boarders immigration policy. One competes with the other
The full QC Times article by Alma Gaul is available through the link. The report revolves around the local branch of the charity World Relief’s efforts to resettle Afghan refugees. Below are some pull quotes from the article that elicited our questions and comments.
300+ Afghans settle in Quad-Cities after the Taliban took over
So resident Biden creates a situation causing thousands of Afghans to leave in a panic for fear for their lives under the Taliban — but World Relief (hereinafter WR) spokespersons have no comment or are neutral on that? Has WR at any time been critical of the catastrophic abandonment of Afghanistan, to the same degree as they lament and criticize processes and availabilities here? Do they have any realization of the problems caused by open borders, disorderly emigration/immigration that more than aggravates the problems they lament in the article?
Here are some gems (set here in bold italics) that appear towards the end of the lengthy article, V’pac annotations follow:
Some properties owned by out-of-area companies said they wouldn’t rent to the Afghans because they couldn’t pass a credit check. “They come from a war zone!” Fontaine said. “We saw that as a sign of blatant racism.”
The BS racism comment is the most egregious part but one must ask given the tone if they consider charity and or risk taking something to be expropriated against their will from landlords? Credit checks are important to limit risk. Now the WR principles (not the volunteers) quoted activities are referred to as charitable, yet as also revealed in the article those WR principles are paid for their work. Note this:
The agency hired more staff, which had dwindled to fewer than 15 during the Trump Administration when the number of refugees and immigrants accepted into the country dropped so low that there was little work to do.
Really, the term “dwindled” is used. If that is a lament by WR then that would imply that these folks are in the business of resettlement, not all that interested in policies that compete with their relief business. The implication of the attitudes expressed by WR in the article is that it is appropriate to pay staff but landlords are not to be reliably paid or are to absorb costs and somehow make their mortgage payments.
As regards the racism charge — are they seriously suggesting that the “out of area companies” (gee I wonder if they are Chinese) would/should lend to a White, an Asian, a Black, a Whomever no matter their credit status until they have a work record or income source? In the case of refugees I thought that was WR’s charitable function — to sustain such individuals until such time as they can be independent? Why doesn’t WR guarantee the rent — oh silly us they want the landlord to regardless of the rents they pay in the form of mortgages on the rental property they own . We suspect your typical “out of area company” really does not care who they rent to as long as they get paid.
The article goes on: (Fontaine is the local WR spokesperson)
In another instance, an apartment Fontaine was told was move-in ready clearly was not.
“I walked in and there was a dead bird. There was a dead mouse. There was poop (human) all over the bathroom. I was gagging. We had signed a lease; we took the word of the landlord. We cleaned it up and put a family in there.”
Now that indicates real competence by the WR people We had signed a lease; we took the word of the landlord.
As a pest control technician not very long ago I witnessed a number of rent-subsided apartments with appalling filth (by no means all). I don’t think the landlords caused it. There was no racial pattern to the filth although certain cultures might learn to understand the attraction of open cooking pot oils permeating rooms as an attraction to cockroaches. In servicing properties after move-outs it was clear that some were more like abandonments with windows left open and torn screens – so a bird can get in and not find its way out. The landlord likely did not do that, want that, nor find out about it until reported — perhaps for days or longer. Who left it that way? Was it a former WR client or a personality that the welfare state helps make?
Landlords are not welfare charities and should not be presumed to be. If tolerating filth is a pattern with that owner — the article does not say if WR reported the situation to the health bureaucracy nor whether the particular abode was owned locally — why are they signing leases to a particular abode sight unseen?!
Fontaine said she sensed the landlord thought the unit was good enough for a nonprofit organization.
That WR volunteers cleaned it up is commendable but objectively one can ask if that does not enable what they decry?
Our comments are not intended to disparage refugees or the appropriateness of such status to particular Afghanies but the obliviousness (or purposefulness) of a system (including nonprofits and government policies and agencies) toward open borders — a situation which breeds pressures on housing– producing, fostering, or enabling but often leaving the worst conditions for needy refugees “in competition with” willful illegal immigrants.
Yes we can do better and Trump’s policies were better.
Related reading —
Afghanistan and the Collapse of Normals’ Faith in the System.
