As I have been reporting, September is the month when the President normally sends a “determination” to the Hill (for consultation only) in which he reports what the refugee admissions ceiling will be in the upcoming fiscal year which begins October 1. However, he is not required by law to agree to admit any refugees.
There are rumors that President Trump will simply not send anything to Congress effectively signaling a suspension of the program.
Editor: BTW, regular readers of RRW might be interested in seeing two posts at Frauds and Crooks that could easily have been posted here because they are refugee related. See hereand here.
Below we havenews from ABCabout a letter to Pompeo from mostly a bunch of people you (or I) have never even heard of who participated in changing America by changing the people for decades.
Trump admin urged to accept refugees amid concerns it will indefinitely delay admissions
A group of prominent former U.S. officials is joining state and local governments, U.S. lawmakers, religious leaders and resettlement agencies in urging the Trump administration to increase refugee admissions in fiscal year 2021 amid historic need around the world.
The administration is supposed to consult with Congress and make a decision by the end of the fiscal year, in one week. But there is growing concern that President Donald Trump will decide to zero out refugee admissions, delay them indefinitely, or reduce the admissions cap even further.
A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on Trump’s cap and “the internal discussions or the timeline related to its development,” but told ABC News it was ultimately the president’s decision.
Reutersreported earlier this month that the administration is considering postponing or further cutting admissions.
Seven former U.S. officials who ran the refugee admissions program under both Republican and Democrat administrations urged Secretary of State Mike Pompeoto express alarm at such a suspension and call for a “substantial increase” in admissions.
The Honorable Frank Loy
Former Director of the Bureau of Refugee Programs (1980–1981) Former Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
James N. Purcell, Jr.
Former Director of the Bureau of Refugee Programs (1982–1986) Former Director General of the International Organization for Migration
The Honorable Phyllis Oakley
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (1994–1997) Former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research
The Honorable Arthur Dewey
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (2002–2005) Former United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees
Former Acting Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration (2007–2009) Former Deputy Legal Adviser for the U.S. Department of State
The Honorable Eric Schwartz
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (2009–2011) Former NSC Senior Director for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs
The Honorable Anne C. Richard
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (2012–2017) Former Director of the Secretary’s Office of Resources, Plans, and Policy, Department of State
I’m writing about Sweden this morning in my‘Invasion of Europe’series because it is so interesting to see that after watching Sweden actively committing cultural suicide for more than a decade, law enforcement and political leaders may now be on the same page and admitting they have a problem.
See my Sweden archive which is mostly filled with stories about foolish and naive decisions the quasi-socialist country has been making for more than a decade.
There is a lesson here for us! Sweden is the canary in the coal mine.
First this news (and btw note the use of the word “clan” rather than any mention of the ethnic origins or religion of those who refuse to be Swedish):
Migrant clans have come to Sweden solely to organize crime and obtain power, says national police chief
According to Deputy National Police Chief Mats Löfving, at least about 40 criminal clans are now active in Sweden, and these clans have migrated to Sweden for the purpose of obtaining power, making money, and further expanding their criminal syndicates.
“These clans have come to Sweden solely to organize crime. They work to create power, they have a great capacity for violence, and they want to make money. And they do that through drug crimes, violent crimes, and extortion,” said Löfving, who made remarks during an interview on Ekot’s Saturday program on Swedish Radio.
According to him, the clans have migrated to Sweden to not only to engage in crime but also to raise their children into a life of organized crime.
The police chief said that the increasingly serious gang crime is something the police have long warned about.
“What we are amazed at is that we believe this development was very clear since 2012.In 2015, we developed a method and mapped Sweden regarding these phenomena.
Löfven’s turn: Connects large migration with the development of crime
The Social Democrats have firmly denied that gang crime can be linked to migration.
But in tonight’s hearing in Aktuellt, it sounds different from Stefan Löfven.
– If you have a migration that means in the order of magnitude that you can not cope with the integration then it will be that we get social tensions in a society and that is not good, says Stefan Löfvenin the pre-recorded interview.
Stefan Löfven has long said that the issue of gang crime cannot be linked to migration. In SVT’s Agenda in November last year, for example, he firmly said no to the question. The Prime Minister explained that gang crime is due to segregation, social divisions and areas of exclusion.
During the party leader debate in the Riksdag on Wednesday, Stefan Löfven was asked why he did not see the connection between a large immigration and growing crime.
Then Löfven answered:
– With a large migration where we can not cope with the integration, then we also follow a greater risk of the problems we see. It’s crystal clear.
And, then he said Donald Trump was right (no! just kidding!).
But, gee no mention of the riots and crime having a thing to do with it?
I’m not crying for New York City and you likely aren’t either!
The Wall Street Journal is boo-hooing about the reduction in population on-going for NYC. Even the WSJ is into the Trump blame game.
Maybe the city can figure out how to get more African Americans in the workforce there.
Immigration to New York City Declines, Amplifying Economic Concerns
New York City’s economy depends on immigrants, but at a time when it needs all the help it can get, the flow of new residents from overseas is slowing.
Immigration to New York City dropped 45% between 2016 and 2019, with about 34,000 immigrants moving to the city last year compared with 62,000 in 2016, according to an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau population estimates by William Frey, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. City officials and immigration advocates say tighter federal immigration policies and delays in processing visa applications during the pandemic have reduced the flow of transplants.
Immigrants make up about 45% of the local workforce and own more than half of the city’s businesses, according to a 2019 report by the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs.
“I am worried that declining rates of international immigration will hurt not only future economic growth in New York City but the stability of New York City’s tax base,” said Michael Hendrix, director of state and local policy at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.
Immigration has traditionally offset the departure of New York City residents to other parts of the U.S., according to Frank Donnelly, a geospatial-data librarian at Baruch College. The recent slowdown in arrivals from other countries, however, contributed to an overall drop in the city’s population the last three years.
President Trump has restricted legal and illegal immigration since taking office, including banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries, reducing the number of refugees allowed to enter the country and imposing a public-charge rule that critics say will prevent immigrants from poor countries from moving to the U.S.
The Refugee Council USA (RCUSA) just completed a three-day grassroots lobbying campaign to pressure members of Congress into supporting a refugee admissions ceiling of 95,000 refugees*** who would begin arriving in the US in a few short weeks—the 2021 fiscal year begins October 1.
Of course it isn’t Congress that makes that decision it is the Executive branch as stated by law in the Refugee Act of 1980. Their campaign, that ran from Tuesday through Thursday this week, was designed for several reasons.
They want Senators and members of Congress to pressure the administration, they want the media to pay attention to an issue that has almost completely disappeared from the news, and they want to give their groupies and grassroots around the country something to do on an issue that they think makes the President look bad before November.
You cansee their “toolkit” (they love toolkits) complete with talking points and contact information for representatives in Washington.
Here is their sample script because I guess they assume their people aren’t smart enough to figure out what to say:
Sample Script: “I’m your constituent from [CITY/TOWN], and I urge you to hold the administration accountable to resettling refugees. The administration is required by law to consult with Congress by September 30th before deciding the refugee admissions goal for Fiscal Year 2021. In the last three years, the administration has cut refugee resettlement by more than 80%, from the historic average goal of 95,000 to just 18,000 – an all-time low. Our country can – and should – safely resettle more refugees and reunite more families. Refugees have contributed greatly to America in ordinary times, and have continued to show up for their new communities during the COVID-19 crisis, with many on the frontlines, including 176,000 serving as healthcare workers and 175,000 working in the food supply chain. Please do everything in your power to see that the administration meaningfully consults with Congress and builds back refugee admissions to the historic norm of 95,000. My community welcomes refugees, and I urge you to reflect the best of our nation by supporting refugee resettlement.”
In addition to contacting one’s own rep, they want their folks to contact the following members and Senators:
Sen. Graham (R-SC), Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee: 202-224-5972 / @LindseyGrahamSC
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX), Chair, Senate Immigration Subcommittee: 202-224-2934 / @JohnCornyn
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee: 202-224-3841 / @SenFeinstein
Senator Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member, Senate Immigration Subcommittee: 202-224-2152 / @SenatorDurbin
Rep. Nadler (NY-10), Chair, House Judiciary Committee: 202-225-5635 / @RepJerryNadler
Rep. Lofgren (CA-19), Chair, House Immigration Subcommittee: 202-225-3072 / @RepZoeLofgren
Rep. Jordan (OH-04), Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee: (202) 225-2676 / @Jim_Jordan
Rep. Buck (CO-04), Ranking Member, House Immigration Subcommittee: 202-225-4676 / @RepKenBuck
And, see my extensive file on theRefugee Council USA, the Washington DC lobbying arm of the refugee industry. Hmmmm! At one point Islamic Relief USAhad been removed from their membership roster, but I see it is back.
Don’t miss my post from Wednesday about the campaign to get local elected officials on board to support huge numbers of refugees for your towns and cities.
***Joe Biden says he is going to go big and change whatever Trump proposes to 125,000 for FY2021 if he is elected President. Truth be told, there isn’t enough capacity within the contractor industry to support that number, heck they can’t adequately resettle 95,000 now either.
I remembered this post from nearly eleven years ago when I responded to a readers comment just now.
Of course, I’ve been saying that gnashing our teeth about how we got here (in chaos) is likely a waste of time at this point when we need to be devoting our full attention to getting Trump re-elected and saving our economy and our selves! Nevertheless, this might be a useful reminder of the Left’s goals in adding more and more poor black and brown people to American towns and cities.
If you are a regular reader, you know one of the themes we have been writing about is what I call “community destabilization,” we have a whole category for those posts, here. And, you know we write about the Cloward-Piven strategy as part of that discussion.
Cloward and Piven, while professors at Columbia University (Obama’s alma mater), penned a 1966 treatise in Nation magazine in which they outlined a strategy to bring about a revolution in America.
I wrote about it most recently, here. Simply stated the strategy involved flooding the welfare system with so many impoverished people that the system would collapse and that would pave the way for a new form of government—a government that would redistribute the wealth and provide a guaranteed income for everyone.
Below is another shocking segment from that article. We are often lectured about what is the moral thing to do about refugees, but let me ask all of you, what is moral about this Far Left strategy?
Remember immigrants and refugees are today’s poor. As unfashionable as the word is, frankly, I call this strategy to place as many people as possible on the welfare system and use them for promotion of a radical political ideology downright evil.* (Emphasis below mine)
To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform.
Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?
First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America’s poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests. Since radical movements in America have rarely been able to provide visible economic incentives, they have usually failed to secure mass participation of any kind. The conservative “business unionism” of organized labor is explained by this fact, for membership enlarged only as unionism paid off in material benefits. Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members. Although leaders have increasingly acted in political spheres, their influence has been directed chiefly to matters of governmental policy affecting the well-being of organized workers. The same point is made by the experience of rent strikes in Northern cities. Their organizers were often motivated by radical ideologies, but tenants have been attracted by the promise that housing improvements would quickly be made if they withheld their rent.
Second, for this strategy to succeed, one need not ask more of most of the poor than that they claim lawful benefits. Thus the plan has the extraordinary capability of yielding mass influence without mass participation, at least as the term “participation” is ordinarily understood. Mass influence in this case stems from the consumption of benefits and does not require that large groups of people be involved in regular organizational roles. [Of course not, the smart people, the elite radicals, would call all the shots!]
Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous.Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely. Other movements have failed precisely because they could not produce continuous and cumulative influence.
When you read the Nation article, note that Cloward and Piven were very conscious of the concept of the ‘presumption of good intentions.’ In other words, they knew that this political strategy would go undetected for a very long time because it would be hidden from their average do-gooder minions by the presumption that this was all about aiding the downtrodden.
I must say this ‘strategy’ is the only logical explanation for why we are still pouring refugees into the US right now when there is little or no work for them and they are being “warehoused” in decrepit apartment buildings, like those in Bowling Green, KY. Incidentally, even if refugees have chicken plant jobs they still receive various forms of public assistance because the meatpackers no longer pay a living wage.
I wonder did Cloward and Piven ever anticipate the involvement of big businesses as allies in the revolution? See this post from August in which I list strange bedfellows on the open borders issue.
* I have to laugh, after I posted this, I see that Ann Coulter also suggested Far Left Liberal strategies were “evil” when she said their motto is: