State Department and refugee lobby group work on private sponsorship scheme to get more refugees into the US

Update October 19th: More on this scheme. Remember the purpose is to get more refugees in to the country because this private scheme would be in ADDITION to the present system.
So, as it is described by one commenter: Instead of buying a $10,000 car in the coming year, what the heck adopt a Syrian refugee instead.
I would be a proponent of private sponsorship if it accompanied the complete abolition of the present system that involves middlemen federal contractors (the VOLAGs) being paid billions of tax dollars, and required the sponsor to pay for all costs associated with the refugees for a year or two. Congress would, of course, have the final say on numbers, security screening and nationalities permitted entry to the US in my hypothetical re-write of refugee law.

Matthew LaCorte (one of the brains behind the plan) thinks $10,000 will get him a refugee—what for a month or two! Then what? The refugee he sponsored is on us!

But, this plan, which they are apparently hatching within the State Department and in cooperation with the Refugee Council USA (the resettlement industry’s lobbying arm), is a plan to bring in additional refugees over and above what Congress is willing to pay for.
(For those of you who think we have no impact, this indicates to me that the industry knows there are limits to how much of your money the Congress is willing to shell out to bring hundreds of thousands of impoverished refugees to your towns.)
This really is a pretty audacious concept since they apparently think they can do this ‘in house’ and not involve rewriting refugee law.  (Congress writes the laws, or have they forgotten?)
Here is the jaw-dropping (Bloomberg, of course!) story at the Chicago Tribune (hat tip: Julia):

Americans might be able to bring a refugee to the U.S. on their own dime if talks between the Obama administration and the nation’s leading refugee advocacy group come to fruition.

The State Department is considering a pilot program that would let citizens sponsor a refugee from their country of choice by paying for airfare, housing, clothing, food and other resettlement costs. Conversations began in July and are expected to continue in the coming year, said Naomi Steinberg, director of the Refugee Council USA.

The program, modeled after a similar one in Canada, is designed to crack open new sources of funding as growing anti-refugee sentiment in Congress threatens to cut resettlement programs.

“It puts Americans in the driver’s seat,” said Matthew La Corte, policy analyst at the Niskanen Center***, a Washington-based libertarian think tank that was an early supporter of the program. “It allows them to say ‘I have a spare bedroom. I was thinking of buying a new car but I’ll instead take that $10,000 and put it toward bringing a Syrian refugee over.”‘


Such a program would mark one of the biggest structural changes to U.S. refugee policy in three decades, and would allow Barack Obama or future presidents to skirt opposition by shifting financial responsibility to everyday Americans.

[I’m all for shifting all of the costs to those who are promoting refugee resettlement—ed]


For fiscal 2016, Congress appropriated $3.1 billion for refugee and migration assistance programs, the same level as two years earlier, according to figures from the agency.

Private sponsorship “is a good option in terms of increasing numbers without increasing budget outlays,” said Kevin Appleby, senior director of international migration policy at the Center for Migration Studies in New York. [Appleby was formerly the lobbyist in DC for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, we have a lot on him here at RRW—ed]

State Department’s Mark Storella: we will be working on it this coming year (when Hillary gets to the White House). Photo:

Refugee Council USA and the state department began talks about private sponsorship this summer, said Steinberg, director at the Washington-based agency, which is an umbrella group for 22 organizations.

The State Department plans to work on the issue “in the year to come,” according to a statement from Mark Storella, a deputy assistant secretary. [Looks like they are pretty confident Hillary will be in the White House.—ed]


Before any program is launched, critical points must be addressed, said Steinberg. The group wants to ensure that sponsorship does not replace existing government programs.

“The only private resettlement program that we could support would be one that increases the number of refugees who arrive in the U.S., while at the same time maintaining and even strengthening the U.S. government commitments,” Steinberg said.

Continue reading here.

*** What is in it for the libertarians at the Niskanen Center—cheap refugee labor for big business? Would someone tell me!

Washington Post whines about Trump power on refugees if elected president

That is not a surprise, but what was a surprise is that the vast majority of the commenters at the Washington Post editorial on Sunday were cheering Trump on!  Readers of the Washington Post!

BIRCH RUN, MI - AUGUST 11: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a press conference before delivering the keynote address at the Genesee and Saginaw Republican Party Lincoln Day Event August 11, 2015 in Birch Run, Michigan. This is Trump's first campaign event since his Republican debate last week. (Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
Hillary will open the floodgates, Trump will not. It is that simple!

Mike Pence as governor of Indiana may not have the power to block certain refugees from his state, but the WaPo acknowledges that a President Trump does!  The Post obviously thinks this information is disqualifying for Trump.  I maintain that the Trump campaign needs to start telling this to his vast audiences!
Here is a bit of the WaPo editorial (I didn’t snip any of their whinny biased lines):

A President Trump could slash the number of refugees allowed to enter the country, including from Syria, downgrading President Obama’s goal of admitting 110,000 in the fiscal year that started Saturday. Federal law gives presidents the power to bar any “class of aliens” they deem “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” so Mr. Trump could as promised ban immigrants from Muslim-majority countries.

Now go there quickly and see the comments!   The majority are for this novel concept: “I like the idea of sending them all back!” (Person20).
See my post of last week on Obama’s FY2017 110,000 ceiling and how Trump can drop it!

Appeals court rules on Syrian refugees: states cannot block their resettlement…

…..if the state is taking federal money for refugee resettlement.
(That is the hook, always the hook, states take federal money and then lose their states’ rights!)

U.S. Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) arrives for a news conference about their goal of permanently extending Bush-era tax rates at the Capitol in Washington, DC, U.S. on December 2, 2010. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
Vice Presidential nominee and Indiana Governor Mike Pence loses Appeals case on Syrian refugee resettlement on eve of VP debate. What a timing coincidence? Come to think of it, maybe Pence can lead Kaine into a trap tonight and ask Kaine how many Syrians he and Hillary want to admit to the US.

The lesson in this decision is that if you, the citizens of any state, want to control admission to your state of refugees being placed there by the US government, you have to either work to scrap or reform the Refugee Act of 1980 (long term) or, you have to work right now to limit federal spending for the program (so fewer refugees can be admitted in the first place).
Monumental task ahead….
Both solutions involve convincing a Congress where the Republican leadership is working against you with the help of most of your own representatives, the so-called religious charities, big greedy-for-cheap-labor global corporations, and the US Chamber of Commerce.
A political solution!
There are still some legal avenues (where is the Tennessee case?) that need to be attempted, but hanging your hat on some legal decision years down the road strikes me as an avoidance measure. Time to tackle your Congressmen and US Senators!
Here is the news from a conservative (we are told) Appeals Court (story posted by Nina Totenberg of NPR):

A federal appeals court panel Monday blocked Indiana Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence’s attempt to keep Syrian refugees out of Indiana.

The court upheld a lower court judge in barring Pence from interfering with the distribution of federal funds to resettle Syrian refugees in his state. The appeals court panel said that federal law bars discrimination based on nationality.

The three-judge panel that issued the ruling is an all-star group of conservative judges, including one of the judges on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

In a unanimous opinion, the appeals court said Gov. Pence acted illegally in accepting federal money for refugee resettlement and then refusing to use that money to aid Syrian refugees.

The panel rejected Pence’s argument that terrorists are posing as Syrian refugees to gain entry into the U.S., calling it a “nightmare speculation” based on no evidence. Indeed, the court said, the state presented no evidence that any Syrian refugee had been involved in a terrorist act in the U.S.

The court added that resettlement of persecuted refugees is a federal responsibility under the 1980 Refugee Act, which authorizes the president*** to determine, on the basis of “humanitarian concerns or … the national interest,” how many refugees to admit each year. In 2016, President Obama set the number at 85,000, including 10,000 Syrians.

It is about the money!
When Congress returns in November they will have to finish and approve the federal budget for the remainder of the 2017 fiscal year (it began Oct. 1, this past Saturday). Congress will either fully fund Obama’s 110,000 refugee plan for 2017 or it won’t appropriate enough of your money for the full 110,000.  It is that simple.
For new readers, I don’t want to go too deep in the weeds, but Texas withdrawing from the program last week, is only a stop gap measure because the federal government will assign a non-profit refugee contractor to run the program. Sure, they will be in chaos for a couple of months there, but it will eventually mean that Texas will be just like all the other Wilson-Fish states. (You are going to have to search RRW for ‘Wilson-Fish’ because I want to move on to other things this morning).
***No easy outs, only two things to save us—Trump is elected and you work your butts off to change Congress on this issue.
LOL! Here comes ‘Mom for Trump’ as promised!

Ann, could you tell all your readers on a daily basis to call our useless Congress @ 202 224 3121 and have them say DEFUND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM. I call daily and if enough of us do so, we can make a difference.

One more child 'refugee' grows up and wants to kill Americans, Maryland this time

His name is Mohamed and he came from Bangladesh as a baby.  Was he a part of a refugee family (the knife attacker in St. Cloud), a successful asylum seeker family (like the Tsarnaevs or the recent NJ bomber), or perhaps his family won the ‘diversity visa lottery’ (we have taken thousands of Bangladeshis through that dreadful program)? All are legal immigration programs the Republicans in Congress refuse to fix!
And, as long as law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, and most media don’t tell us which legal means the newest Islamic terrorist used to get in to the US, I’ve decided to call them all refugees.

He was one more ISIS terrorist. Another story at AP gives additional details:

Enterprising reporters should call all of the federal resettlement contractors in Maryland and see if he is one of theirs.
Here is news about the latest Islamic terrorist we raised with our welfare dollars.
From Breitbart:

The FBI has detained yet another Islamic immigrant named Mohamed for preparing a jihad attack.

This time, the arrested Islamic immigrant is Nelash Mohamed Das, aged 24. He was born in Bangladesh and was living in Maryland.

Since 2001, law-enforcement officials have arrested more than 101 people named for Islam’s reputed prophet, Muhammad. Many other Islamic immigrants, converts and citizens have launched deadly attacks against Americans in Orlando, Florida, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in San Bernardino, California, in Fort Hood, Texas, and in other places.

In 2015, Das began to prepare a murder attempt of a U.S. service member living in Hyattsville, Maryland. When he and a confidential FBI source drove to the target’s house on October 3, Das was arrested as he tried to remove the weapons from the car’s trunk.

Keep reading.
By the way, here is my fix for every one of the cases where we raised a child and he (or she) grew up to be convicted on terrorism charges, the whole family gets deported and any other relatives and friends who could be proven to know what he/she was up to—out!  A few cases like that and we wouldn’t have these ethnic families and communities knowing that an attack was coming and remaining silent.