Day: September 27, 2019

More on the President’s 18,000 Refugees for FY2020 Decision

~ Ann Corcoran ~ 4 Comments

Editor:  First, see my quickie post last night.  Also, note that I am now able (at this newly reconstructed RRW) to accept comments and I suspect more than a few of you might not like my analysis. So I will say at the outset, my hesitation to give a full blessing to the Presidential Determination in no way diminishes my support for the President. 

As the Leftists know so well, in order to move the needle on any political issue there has to be someone staking out a position who is willing to say it is not enough!  Heck, all of the groups included in the Refugee Industry were demanding 95,000 refugees knowing that was NEVER going to happen. They didn’t come in with anything that would appear reasonable—say 35,000-40,000—they went for the extreme.

However, I’m not saying that I wanted zero this year purely as a political ploy, but I am saying that simply reducing numbers and tinkering around the edges of an extremely flawed program designed in 1979 and 1980 by Senator Ted Kennedy and President Jimmy Carter is not going to fix how we admit refugees in the decades ahead.

Setting the level at zero would likely have forced a major national debate and Trump could have said to Congress—you don’t like it, then dump the Refugee Act of 1980 and reform the entire process by which we admit refugees.

And, yes, this is only the beginning you might argue, but only if Donald Trump is reelected in 2020!

As predicted, those organizations with a vested interest in admitting more refugees both as future Democrat voters and because they are paid to place refugees are furious.

Here is what the Refugee Council USA (an Open Borders lobbying consortium in Washington, DC) said last night.

Washington, DC – The Administration announced that it is proposing to set the Presidential Determination (PD) for annual refugee admissions for FY 2020 at 18,000. This decision is unprecedented, cruel, and contrary to American humanitarian values and strategic interests.

[….]

The US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is built on nearly four decades of public-private partnership, bringing together nonprofits, faith groups, local communities, and the Federal and State governments for this essential community-building work. Refugees strengthen our communities and our country socially, culturally, and economically.

Public-Private Partnership mumbo-jumbo!

Of course, and as usual, there is no mention that nine of the members of RCUSA*** have a financial interest in keeping numbers high because they are paid from the US Treasury to place refugees into towns and cities of their choosing.

I continue to argue that the major flaw in the US Refugee Admissions Program is the fact that Left-leaning non-profit groups are paid for their ‘charitable’ work, so there is never any incentive to adjust the flow without those groups taking to the streets with anti-Trump placards held aloft.

Kennedy and Carter created a political structure funded by taxpayers that assures a continuous flow of third world poverty to American towns and cities. 

Those of us who object have no political organization with the financial resources of the nine resettlement contractors and their extensive networks, mostly through their church or synagogue infrastructure, to fight back. Not to mention the big bucks certain industries (meatpackers!) and the Chamber of Commerce are shelling out in order to keep a steady supply of cheap labor.

Although there was talk last year of dropping some of the nine federal contractors, that didn’t happen and all nine are still in place. But, even if this coming year’s low number forces a couple of the contractors to close their programs, it just allows the big ones like the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the International Rescue Committee to further monopolize the process.

First, get rid of the contractors!

I have said and continue to maintain that if we are to admit refugees then there is no reason that these non-profits, including the churches, can’t still do their ‘humanitarian’ work in the old fashioned way—with true private charity, and not as paid agents of the federal government.

Geographic placement of refugees

Lawrence Bartlett, as far as I know, still runs the Refugee Program at the State Department. Here he proudly displays a map of the resettlement sites chosen with very little consultation with communities by the nine resettlement contractors. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-refugees/sidelined-state-department-official-returns-to-refugee-post-idUSKCN1NO2K6

The second important issue I’ve raised here for years involves the placement of refugees which has been largely dictated by the nine federal contractors for decades.

Yes, they coordinate with the US State Department, but it’s largely a game of pin the refugee on the map. 

Only when citizens of the ‘lucky’ chosen community organize and object does anyone pay any attention to concerns about a given location (a large part of my work here for a dozen years has been to show where citizens in “pockets of resistance” have objected to the US State Department changing their community by changing the people.)

I give the President kudos for an attempt to address the problem of placement with an Executive Order signed yesterday.  Read it here. But, honestly it has not been very carefully thought through and thus strikes me as a political bone thrown to critics of the program.

Why didn’t the President’s people call in some of us who are somewhat knowledgeable about how the program works on the ground to help craft a feasible way to give decision-making power to the states and local citizens who will be most affected by the arrival of large numbers of impoverished people?

This is getting too long, but let me give a few examples of why I say the order has not been thoroughly thought out.

So, governor number one (who might only have a year or so left in his/her term) says yes, we love refugees send more, but a neighboring governor says no thanks.  What is going to keep the refugees in welcoming state number one?

In America, all of us are allowed to move without government approval and that includes refugees.

You can run that same scenario involving mayors.  One mayor says we love refugees, but a town down the road isn’t on board with the idea. Refugees placed in town number one pack up and move to town number two anyway!

Then how about ‘welcoming’ governor number one is out of office in a year and is replaced by another governor who wants to stop the refugee flow to the state, how quickly could the feds put on the brakes to stop the flow to the now ‘unwelcoming’ state?   You can see the chaos that would ensue.

I do have some ideas that I think could work in terms of revamping the whole program (assuming Americans want to continue accepting some refugees), but no one has ever contacted me to ask.

There are so many other issues involving the Presidential Determination that need to be discussed and I’ll do that in the coming days—things like: we are going to continue to take Australia’s rejected asylum seekers!  Nuts!

Let me just say once again, maybe more clearly:  We can still support President Trump and criticize some of his decisions.

It is my view that Trump’s greatest downfall as President began on day one when he did not immediately clean out the deep state actors throughout the White House and federal agencies and move his genuine (and knowledgeable) loyal supporters into his Administration.

The best thing you can do now is work hard for Trump’s reelection so that he has four more years to get it right and solve this problem.

***For new readers these are the nine federally-funded resettlement contractors: