Maine’s Largest City Strains Under Asylum-Seeker Influx

[Pedestrian]

By Jennifer Levitz | Photographs by Yoon S. Byun for The Wall Street Journal
Jan. 27, 2019 10:00 a.m. ET

PORTLAND, Maine—

. . . Maine’s largest city of about 67,000 is now struggling with an influx of asylum seekers, to the point where a local official is alerting shelters in other parts of the country to discourage people from heading here . . . .

Asylum seekers, who are primarily from African countries, now make up 90% of the people living in Portland’s city-run family shelter and overflow shelter, where new arrivals sleep on mats. A city fund that assists with necessities is dwindling fast, and pro-bono lawyers are overwhelmed with cases, Mr. MacLean said . . . .

. . . the migrants in Maine have typically come to the U.S. on visas . . . .

Maine, a slow-growing state known for lobsters and long winters, has for years looked to immigrants to boost the workforce and population. Immigrants now work everywhere from seafood plants to machine shops to manufacturing operations and run businesses in Portland, a trendy waterfront locale known nationally for its restaurant scene.

The foreign-born population fueled more than 75% of population growth in Portland and the surrounding area in 2011-16, according to a report co-produced by the city.

Portland has rejected the label of sanctuary city, citing its policy allowing for cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Asylum seekers, who apply once they are in the U.S., are generally ineligible for federal benefits until they get asylum, and are prohibited from working for at least six months after filing an asylum application. Preparing to file can itself take months because of challenges such as waits for legal help and difficulty getting documents from home countries, said Mr. MacLean, the social-services administrator . . . .

Under Maine law, asylum seekers who have filed an application may qualify for general assistance, for up to 24 months. Funded by the state and municipalities, that program provides vouchers for rent, utilities and other staples.

In Portland, 65% to 70% of the 1,000 people now receiving general assistance are noncitizens, primarily asylum seekers, according to city staff. The city re-evaluates their eligibility every 30 days, and recipients must perform work for the city in return for the aid. Local nonprofits also help asylum seekers with needs, from winter coats to language classes.

In addition, the city budgets about $200,000 annually to fill in gaps for asylum seekers who don’t qualify for general assistance, such as those who haven’t yet filed an application . . . .

https://www.wsj.com/articles/maines-...d=hp_lead_pos9

[BrownTown]

Send them packing.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Send them packing.

Because... ?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Because... ?

Because he's a flaming racist, look up his previous comments.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by The North One

Because he's a flaming racist, look up his previous comments.

Not to mention xenophobe, homophobe, misogynist, and supporter of eugenics who feels it is his duty to produce many children with his 21-year-old fiancee because she is of good breeding stock and his seed is pure.

[skyscraperpage17]

This belongs in off-topic/politics, IMO.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

This belongs in off-topic/politics, IMO.

^^^Quoting for emphasis.

[mhays]

It would be nice to be the shining city on the hill again (referring to the US). Send us your poor, your huddled masses, etc. We should try to be America. Asylum-seeking is awkward but it's part of what makes us (most of the time) a great country.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by mhays

It would be nice to be the shining city on the hill again (referring to the US). Send us your poor, your huddled masses, etc. We should try to be America. Asylum-seeking is awkward but it's part of what makes us (most of the time) a great country.

Immigration is a big part of our national mythology but don't forget that the real motivation for 19th century immigration was to provide eastern industrialists with cheap labor. Because of the allure of the west on the settled population, the eastern cities would have had chronic labor shortages without immigration. It wasn't until the end of mass immigration that the urban working class had decent living standards. The mass affluence that happened after WWII came in an environment of tight labor markets and almost no immigration.

The modern professional classes love immigration because they get cheap services and can feel like they live in an enlightened society without having to bear any of the negative consequences. Labor shortages are terrible for capital but great for workers while the opposite is true of flush labor markets. All large media outlets are owned by people who want to frame the debate to make it appear that tight labor markets are always terrible while immigration is universally good. They do this because they want their workforce to be relatively powerless when it comes to asking for improved wages and benefits. This is how capital uses modern identity politics to undermine the power of the working class and maintain its position of control. The fact that a lot of people who oppose immigration do so because they are bigots helps capital sell this right wing policy of destroying the working class to the center and the left.

I agree this topic should be in the Politics forum.

[CaliNative]

delete

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by mhays

It would be nice to be the shining city on the hill again (referring to the US). Send us your poor, your huddled masses, etc. We should try to be America. Asylum-seeking is awkward but it's part of what makes us (most of the time) a great country.

Yeah, but isn't there a limit to how many we can take? I would guess one or two billion people in this troubled world would love to move here if they could get here. Do we take them all? Imagine the traffic jams if the U.S. had a billion people. Imagine the costs to taxpayers. Australia and Canada are huge countries with fewer people than California. Let them take in some more refugees. The U.S. already has millions of our own poor & homeless people. Shouldn't our priority should be to help them first?

[jtown,man]

Whats up with Maine?

Google Mappin' it is always a good time, great little towns! Why hasn't it grown much?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Whats up with Maine?

Google Mappin' it is always a good time, great little towns! Why hasn't it grown much?

Since 2010 the % increase has been higher than other New England states of Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut -- which is in negative growth territory. Maine's rate of growth is just behind New York and Penn.

But the reason for slow-stagnant growth is because in most of Maine there are no jobs to be found. Portland, Bangor are growing, but the rest of Maine has been in decline for quite some time. Maine is full of seasonal summer residents and tourists that fuel the economy.

The climate has a lot to do with this. Down East is the most desirable part because it's moderated by the Atlantic Ocean. A lot of young Mainers leave the state for the [a] city, or to warmer climates or to places where there are jobs.

Portland is less than two hours from Boston, has a great regional airport and passenger rail access.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Whats up with Maine?

Google Mappin' it is always a good time, great little towns! Why hasn't it grown much?

The cost of eldritch horror insurance is through the roof. Have you seen what it costs to insure even the dumpiest mid 50's rancher against sewer clowns?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Yeah, but isn't there a limit to how many we can take? I would guess one or two billion people in this troubled world would love to move here if they could get here. Do we take them all? Imagine the traffic jams if the U.S. had a billion people. Imagine the costs to taxpayers. Australia and Canada are huge countries with fewer people than California. Let them take in some more refugees. The U.S. already has millions of our own poor & homeless people. Shouldn't our priority should be to help them first?

In other words, quality over quantity.

I know it sounds cold, but I think some folks think that we should be a homeless shelter for the rest of the world, but can you imagine the strain on the U.S., and the degrading of general life is we had an impoverished population on the scale of India for example, with such density? It would be a poop show in the U.S..

Thus, I do believe quality over quantity.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by chris08876

In other words, quality over quantity.

I know it sounds cold, but I think some folks think that we should be a homeless shelter for the rest of the world, but can you imagine the strain on the U.S., and the degrading of general life is we had an impoverished population on the scale of India for example, with such density? It would be a poop show in the U.S..

Thus, I do believe quality over quantity.

I am also a proponent of quality over quantity when it comes to immigration.

But the whole premise of refugee/asylum programs is that a person's dire circumstances trump everything else, including whether they will be a "choice" member of society or not. (As we know, those dire circumstances are not supposed to be primarily economic in nature, but things have become very blurred on this front.)

My sense is that the international refugee system (if we can call it a system) is heading right into a brick wall at full speed.

At some point fairly soon it will become unsustainable, and hopefully instead of transplanting large numbers of people from troubled to non-troubled countries, the focus will shift to making their home countries less troubled and more livable.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am also a proponent of quality over quantity when it comes to immigration.

But the whole premise of refugee/asylum programs is that a person's dire circumstances trump everything else, including whether they will be a "choice" member of society or not. (As we know, those dire circumstances are not supposed to be primarily economic in nature, but things have become very blurred on this front.)

My sense is that the international refugee system (if we can call it a system) is heading right into a brick wall at full speed.

At some point fairly soon it will become unsustainable, and hopefully instead of transplanting large numbers of people from troubled to non-troubled countries, the focus will shift to making their home countries less troubled and more livable.

Originally Posted by chris08876

In other words, quality over quantity.

I know it sounds cold, but I think some folks think that we should be a homeless shelter for the rest of the world, but can you imagine the strain on the U.S., and the degrading of general life is we had an impoverished population on the scale of India for example, with such density? It would be a poop show in the U.S..

Thus, I do believe quality over quantity.

Is there any reason to suspect that the "quality" of today's refugees (whether you consider that the person's skills, talents, ability to contribute to society etc. or however you want to measure it) would be expected to be "worse" than past waves of refugees (whether it's the more recent past, like Vietnamese in the 70s from the Vietnam war or farther back like the Jews fleeing pogroms or the Irish famine emigrants)?

In many of these cases, the refugees may not be selected to be the most skilled or educated like economic migrants (though often the absolute poorest of the poor are not able to leave). But still, it's often the westernized, more educated people that can leave when war/conflict strikes in some situations.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is there any reason to suspect that the "quality" of today's refugees (whether you consider that the person's skills, talents, ability to contribute to society etc. or however you want to measure it) would be expected to be "worse" than past waves of refugees (whether it's the more recent past, like Vietnamese in the 70s from the Vietnam war or farther back like the Jews fleeing pogroms or the Irish famine emigrants)?

In many of these cases, the refugees may not be selected to be the most skilled or educated like economic migrants (though often the absolute poorest of the poor are not able to leave). But still, it's often the westernized, more educated people that can leave when war/conflict strikes in some situations.

Thats a good question. If we were to compare immigrants say from Latin America today to Eastern Europeans in 1900 I think we could come up with some interesting comparisons. I think our current immigrants, legal and illegal, are more educated than our former immigrants. But our economy is 100x more complex and demands more intellectual talent than in 1900. And its sad to say, but a lot of the jobs these days require a piece of paper saying the government is granting you the power to do this or that. This wasn't the case in 1900 and there also weren't computers. So I think the immigrants of yesterday had an easier time blending into American society since we were still a mainly manual-labor society. That isn't the case today, so the options of a unskilled worker(lets say, former peasant farmer) is a lot less bright than it would have been 120 years ago.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is there any reason to suspect that the "quality" of today's refugees (whether you consider that the person's skills, talents, ability to contribute to society etc. or however you want to measure it) would be expected to be "worse" than past waves of refugees (whether it's the more recent past, like Vietnamese in the 70s from the Vietnam war or farther back like the Jews fleeing pogroms or the Irish famine emigrants)?

In many of these cases, the refugees may not be selected to be the most skilled or educated like economic migrants (though often the absolute poorest of the poor are not able to leave). But still, it's often the westernized, more educated people that can leave when war/conflict strikes in some situations.

I know you're not slagging me, but I wanted to clarify that my point was not to imply that refugees are inherently "low quality" individuals.

Rather, my point is that there is basically no "filter" applied to them other than their personal situation relative to internationally accepted criteria for seeking and obtaining asylum.

You are correct that in some cases the more educated affluent people are the ones most likely to make it to the U.S. or Canada, but that isn't always true. There are some pretty glaring examples of this in the region where I live.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Australia and Canada are huge countries with fewer people than California. Let them take in some more refugees. The U.S. already has millions of our own poor & homeless people. Shouldn't our priority should be to help them first?

Australia and Canada already take in way more refugees relative to population than the U.S. does.

Australia's rate is double and Canada's is about five times that of the U.S.