As the White House wrestles with the US State Department over the refugee ceiling for the coming fiscal year (which btw begins in 21 short days!), I’m reminded of what Bill Frelick, Director of the Refugee Rights Program at Human Rights Watch told Newsweekin November of 2016.
In a story titled, ‘TRUMP ELECTION LEAVES REFUGEE ADVOCATES FEARFUL AND UNCERTAIN’about how the Open Borders activists were feeling in the wake of Trump’s win, Frelick said this:
During his presidential campaign, Trump said he planned to suspend the Syrian refugee program, which is “fairly easy for him to do because this is discretionary,” says Bill Frelick, director of Human Rights Watch’s refugee program, who described himself as “shell-shocked” when he spoke with Newsweek on Wednesday. “In the U.S., there’s not a quota that has to be filled. The U.S. has a budgeted amount of money to do refugee resettlement, but there’s no requirement that the U.S. resettle a single refugee, and there’s no legal obligation to do it.”
Editor: This is crossposted from ‘Frauds and Crooks’ this morning because I want this post archived here at the new RRW as well.
Michelle Malkin: Sixty Reasons Why the US Refugee Program is a Danger to Us!
Malkin’s timing is excellent because as I write this the Trump Administration is wrestling with an important legal requirement. In the coming weeks they must decide how many refugees (if any!) will be admitted to the US in FY2020 which begins in 21 days!
Every year since the Refugee Act of 1980 was signed into law by Jimmy Carter, the President determines how many UN-selected refugees will be welcomed to a town near you. Needless to say the refugee industry is in high gear putting pressure on the White House to get the numbers as high as they can (they are demanding 90,000) because the refugee contractors financial survival depends on high numbers!
Therefore, the timing of the release of Michelle Malkin’s new book couldn’t be better.
Here, at Breitbart, she pulls no punches and tells us about it and directs your attention to 60 reasons (60 Islamists we welcomed to become ‘new Americans’ while they came to do us harm.)
By the way, Trump can legally set the refugee ceiling for FY2020 at Zero!
Exclusive — Michelle Malkin: 60 Terrifying Reasons Trump Is Right to Reduce Refugees
Here are three facts that the most hysterical voices attacking the Trump administration’s proposal to radically reduce or freeze refugee admissions don’t want you to know:
1) They make billions of dollars off the federal refugee resettlement racket;
2) They are protected by the Open Borders Inc. media, which routinely whitewashes the gobsmacking financial self-interest of the “Let Them All In” leeches; and
3) They are never held accountable when untold numbers of the world’s most wretchedly violent and aggrieved refugees come here to sabotage the American Dream.
While left-wing religious groups, tax-exempt non-profits tied or allied to George Soros, and the amnesty-shilling Catholic Church scream “No hate, no fear, everyone is welcome here!” at the top of their lungs, American neighborhoods are being overrun by dangerous foreign criminals and jihad plotters.
David Miliband, president and CEO of International Rescue Committee, attacked the White House plan to slash refugee numbers from an Obama-era high of 100,000 to less than the current historic low of 30,000 as “inhumane.”
Is it because cutting the numbers would cut in to Miliband’s first-class travel and business lunch tabs? Malkin Truth-O-Meter: mostly likely true!
What Miliband neglects to mention in his diatribe against President Trump that his organization is one of 9 behemoth government contractors that works with the hostile United Nations and encrusted State Department social justice warriors to import thousands of new refugees every year with little input from the communities in which they are dumped. Miliband earns nearly a million-dollar salary*** and by one estimate, IRC has raked in nearly $900 million in refugee resettlement profits over the last decade. When you cut through the Statue of Liberty smokescreen of the open borders “charities,” the math is clear:
Reduced refugees means reduced cash flow.
Zero refugees means zero cash flow.
Why should taxpayers continue to see their hard-earned money siphoned away to feed the Trump Resistance Machine and Democrat Party’s Permanent Ruling Majority Project?
There are even more compelling reasons to throttle the refugee flow. According to the logic-twisting, ICE-doxxing cheerleaders at the New York Times, refugee reductions are the real threat to our nation because if we don’t keep importing hordes of Muslim translators from Iraq or Afghanistan, it would “undermine” our national security.
***And see mypost here at RRWa few days ago about the push to admit more Iraqi and Afghan translators. You will see the proof of Miliband’s obscene salary!
By the way, I am seeing a huge campaign by the contractors and their media lackeys to pressure the President at this very moment to agree to admit tens of thousands of UN-selected refugees to be your new neighbors.
One of the reasons I’m glad to be back writing at the newly reconstructed RRWis because I’ve missed writing about some of my favorite players on the world stage—the ones who get it!
Former Aussie PM Tony Abbott and Hungarian PM Viktor Orban at a conference on migrants swarming Europe in Budapest last week.
The Guardian is sniffing about the audacity of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban holding a conference in which the discussion was about “migrants swarming Europe” in order to change it, to wipe out western civilization.
A key speaker at the event was former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (see all of my previous posts on Abbott by clicking here.)
Tony Abbott attacks migrants ‘swarming’ to Europe while praising far-right PM of Hungary
The former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has praised the far-right prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, and warned a conference in Europe about “military age” male immigrants “swarming” the continent.
How to enrage the Leftists! Tell them the truth!Meghan and Harry can make a statement about only having two children to save the planet. But, how about telling that to Africans and to Muslims who encourage their people to have six or more children and aren’t going to stop procreating to save the planet when the goal is to conquer it! (I’m guessing British Imams are laughing their heads off!)
In a speech that praised the central European country’s race-based immigration and population policies, Abbott also criticised Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, for remarks that they would not have more than two children owing to the effects on the environment – saying it would make little difference “when so many children are being born elsewhere”.
The former leader of Australia, a staunch conservative who was ousted as prime minister by his centre-right Liberal party in 2015, was a guest of honour at a Hungarian government-backed summit on demography in Budapest on Thursday. He gave a lecture on what European countries could learn from Australian immigration policy.
He said the left was attempting to undermine western society with migration and the “climate cult”.
[….]
“The problem with the people who have been swarming across the borders in Europe in very recent times is that you don’t get any impression that they come to join. You get the impression they come to change.
I’d call this swarming, wouldn’t you?
“I mean … you get a million angry military-age males swarming into a single country in a year. They are not there to be grateful, they are there with a grievance. And people who come with a grievance are very different to people who come with gratitude in their hearts.
“There is an absolute moral world of difference between people who cross a border to be safe, and people who cross multiple borders to have a better life. No one can blame them for wanting a better life but nobody has a duty to give it to them unconditionally and with no questions asked.”
On Harry and Meghan, Abbott said: “Having fewer children in western countries will hardly make the climate better when so many children are being born elsewhere.”
One of the reasons I am glad to be back with a functioning Refugee Resettlement Watchblog is that I can continue to post on some subjects that have long interested me and this is one:
Michelle Obama fawned over Nelson Mandela (the father of the Rainbow Nation) in 2011. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also famously praised the nation of South Africa and its Socialist constitution.
South Africa, the “Rainbow Nation,” so celebrated by communists and the international Left, has been busy demonstrating the tribal nature of black South Africans—heck, they don’t like the whites in S. Africa, but they hate other Africans too!
(See dozens of previous posts on South Africa here.)
You can’t call it racism as South African blacks attack black African foreigners, so the word ‘xenophobia’ fits the bill!
The reports are so numerous this week that I couldn’t pick one to snip.
Black on Black violence erupts again in South Africa!
What the Xenophobic Violence Gripping South Africa Means for Future of Country
Just so you know, we are taking some of those ‘foreigners’ (the ones that South African blacks hate) as refugees to America!
Do you remember a year or so ago when there was much talk from the White House that we might take some South African white farmers (some have been attacked and killed by the blacks who want their farmland).
I checked the data just now and see that in the first ten months of this fiscal year we admitted 46 ‘refugees’ from South Africa. When I checked another data base at the Refugee Processing Center I learned that we took ZERO South Africans. Therefore those 46 had to be other migrants originally from other African countries that were being persecuted by black South Africans.
Bottomline, white South Africans in the ‘Rainbow Nation’ are not being protected by the UN and the US Refugee Admissions Programwhile black Africans are!
South Africa’s xenophobia is thus creating more refugees for taxpaying Americans to support!
We have admitted almost 240,000 refugees including interpreters and others who supposedly helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2006 and some former military leaders say it isn’t enough and are pushing for more ‘new American’ Muslims for your neighborhoods.
It sure ticks me off!
Recently one of the nine federally-funded refugee contractors—the International Rescue Committee—crowed that former military leaders had sent a letter to the White House telling the Prez that it was imperative to bring in tens of thousands of additional refugees to help them—the military—around the world.
One of the signers of the letter to Trump is Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark who openly supported the Presidency of Barack Obama.
You cansee the letter here. For anyone who knows even a little about the refugee industry you will immediately recognize the language in the letter as boilerplate refugee industry lingo.
You might also notice that the military brass is mixing apples and oranges when discussing refugee admissions.
There are two major flows for legal ‘refugee’ admissions.
As CEO of the International Rescue Committee, the wealthiest of nine federal refugee contractors, Miliband crowed about the military support for more refugee admissions. Does he want to be sure to preserve his partially-federally funded salary of over $900,000 per YEAR?***
One is the original program set up by the Refugee Act of 1980 that is at present admitting around 30,000 refugees from places like the DR Congo, Burma, the Ukraine and some other African countries. Our military isn’t actively engaged in those places. That is the program approaching a critical decision point in the coming days and weeks.
Then there is the newer Special Immigrant Visa Program that admits the supposed military helpers from Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that those are the primary places of concern to top brass who have made promises of a ticket to America in exchange for their help.
The numbers of Afghan and Iraqi SIVs are separate from the Refugee Act of 1980refugees.
[An aside: I argue that if you bring every last Iraqi and Afghan supporter of America to live in the US, what have you left in those countries—only those that hate us!]
Before I even get to the news—An important meeting is scheduled at the White House on Tuesday to discuss setting the cap for refugee admissions in FY2020—ponder these numbers.
Since October 1, 2006, we admitted 10,917 regular refugees from Afghanistan and 58,371 Special Immigrant Visas through August 26, 2019 for a total of 69,288.
During that same time period we admitted 143,082 Iraqi refugees and 18,508 SIVs from Iraq for a total of 161,590.
Total interpreters for the two hotbed Islamic countries was 76,879!
Really! That many were doing translation services for us? Or did anyone who took out the trash qualify to become your new neighbor?
Isn’t that enough? And, how many of the military brass who are shilling for the refugee contractors (like moneybags Miliband) are inviting Afghans and Iraqis to their homes, or to their neighborhoods?
Sorry this is getting long, but here is the story you need to read. From the New York Times(hat tip: Joanne):
Trump Administration Considers a Drastic Cut in Refugees Allowed to Enter U.S.
WASHINGTON — The White House is considering a plan that would effectively bar refugees from most parts of the world from resettling in the United States by cutting back the decades-old program that admits tens of thousands of people each year who are fleeing war, persecution and famine, according to current and former administration officials.
There is much discussion in the NYT article about Trump aide Stephen Miller and his dastardly deeds (like placing loyal Trump supporters at the State Department) to slow the refugee flow into America.
In meetings over the past several weeks, one top administration official has proposed zeroing out the program altogether, while leaving the president with the ability to admit refugees in an emergency.
Another option that top officials are weighing would cut refugee admissions by half or more, to 10,000 to 15,000 people, but reserve most of those spots for refugees from a few handpicked countries or groups with special status, such as Iraqis and Afghans who work alongside American troops, diplomats and intelligence operatives abroad.
Both options would all but end the United States’ status as a leader in accepting refugees from around the world.
The issue is expected to come to a head on Tuesday, when the White House plans to convene a high-level meeting in the Situation Room to discuss at what number Mr. Trump should set the annual, presidentially determined ceiling on refugee admissions for the coming year.
[….]
Advocates of the nearly 40-year-old refugee program inside and outside the administration fear that approach would effectively starve the program, making it impossible to resettle even those narrow populations. The advocacy groups say the fate of the program increasingly hinges on an unlikely figure: Mark T. Esper, the secretary of defense.
Barely two months into his job as Pentagon chief, Mr. Esper, a former lobbyist and defense contracting executive, is the newest voice at the table in the annual debate over how many refugees to admit. But while Mr. Esper’s predecessor, Jim Mattis, had taken up the refugee cause with an almost missionary zeal, repeatedly declining to embrace large cuts because of the potential effect he said they would have on American military interests around the world, Mr. Esper’s position on the issue is unknown.
The senior military leadership at the Defense Department has been urgently pressing Mr. Esper to follow his predecessor’s example and be an advocate for the refugee program, according to people familiar with the conversations in the Pentagon.
[….]
A senior Defense Department official said that Mr. Esper had not decided what his recommendation would be for the refugee program this year. As a result, an intense effort is underway by a powerful group of retired generals and humanitarian aid groups to persuade Mr. Esper to pick up where Mr. Mattis left off.
A reminder to all! Even if the number of refugees drops to nearly zero (it won’t!), the program will still be in place for a future President to simply put it on steroids to make up for what they will call the “lost Trump years.”
There must be a complete overhaul of the program while Trump is in the White House!
*** I hadn’t checked British national David Miliband’s salary for awhile so imagine my shock to see this from the most recent Form 990 for the IRC.
The IRC received over $500 MILLION from the US Treasury (from you!) in this one year!
Look at these salaries!
You shouldcontact the White Houseover this weekend and on Monday and tell the President what you think he should do!
Here are three facts that the most hysterical voices attacking the Trump administration’s proposal to radically reduce or freeze refugee admissions don’t want you to know:
