You are all aware now that the President is about to make a determination for how many refugees from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East will be admitted to the US in FY2020 which begins in less than three weeks.
There had been talk the President could put the number at zero!
And, you also might have seen the news that the President had a win in the Supreme Court that could limit the number of asylum seekers coming into the country illegally and then requesting asylum which means asking for refugee status. (There is a backlog of hundreds of thousands yet to be processed!)
Yesterday we learned that USCIS Acting Director.Ken Cuccinelli linked the two and suggested that potentially fewer asylum seekers would allow for more third worlders from elsewhere to gain admission.
But, heck, we won’t know for weeks or months if the Supreme Court decision will move the needle at all, but the refugees could be arriving beginning in 18 days.
This is nuts!
I sure hope someone in the White House has already swatted down the asinine idea!
Cuccinelli: Supreme Court ruling may boost refugee admissions
Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli suggested Thursday that contemplated reductions in refugee admissions might be scaled back following a Supreme Court asylum ruling Wednesday evening.
In a major victory for President Donald Trump, the high court gave his administration permission Wednesday to implement a sweeping ban on asylum seekers who pass through another country en route to the U.S. The third-country asylum ban is expected to choke off claims by Central Americans and other migrants who transit through Mexico.
With a reduction in asylum cases, Cuccinelli suggested, resources might be redirected to processing refugee claims.Asylum applies to migrants who seek refuge at the border or inside the U.S.; refugee status is sought by applicants from their home countries.
Speaking to several reporters after an event hosted by Axios, Cuccinelli said the court’s ruling could become a factor in discussions over where to set the coming year’s refugee ceiling. Trump cut refugee levels down to the 30,000 in the current fiscal year, a steep decrease over the 110,000 proposed by former President Barack Obama*** before he left office. Trump administration officials have considered slashing admissions again in fiscal year 2020 — possibly even reducing levels to zero.
“It hasn’t necessarily been connected yet, but last night’s Supreme Court decision does affect the humanitarian space,” Cuccinelli said Thursday morning.
***I am so sick of the mediareporting that Obama set the ceiling at 110,000 in his final year in office (in late 2016!) as a way of comparing his numbers in the most favorable light in contrast to Trump’s.
Obama never set a ceiling anywhere near that high in his previous 7 years and only came near that ceiling (aka cap) in a few of those years!
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.
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.
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.
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!
In the first month of Fiscal Year 2019, Trump’s State Department admitted its initial group of refugees, mostly UN-selected, toward its proposed cap of 30,000 for resettlement this year.
They are being quietly distributed to approximately 170 towns and cities.
If the DOS kept this same pace, 1,830 a month, we would come in just under 22,000 for the year that ends September 30, 2019. In fiscal year 2018, we admitted 22,491 as the final number. (These numbers do not include the thousands granted asylum each month or the Special Immigrant visa entries who mostly come from Iraq and Afghanistan and get the same benefits as the regular DOS refugees.)
As the President heads to Texas and the Central American migrant caravan marches on toward our southern border, I can’t help but say ‘told you so.’
Between illegal immigration and legal refugees, the hard Left Open Borders activists and agitators are turning a red state blue.
They might not succeed this year (then again they could!), but it is happening, and proud patriotic Texans better get in gear to stop it!
A little over two years ago I reportedthat Republican Governor Greg Abbott withdrew the state from the US Refugee Admissions Program, but little good it did as I reported last week that Texas is now solidly, and by a large margin, the top refugee resettlement state in the nation.
No time for more on this today. But, if you want to see how Texas has come to this place in its history, see my Texas archive here.
So, I saw this data and figured it would be a useful bit of information for you especially as there is much talk these days as a result of the US Senate race there about Texas turning blue.
Of course, refugee numbers alone aren’t going to be the deciding factor, but as refugees come in (along with all of the other migrants coming in to Texas) they help to change the political landscape by eroding the long-standing cultural cohesiveness and character of the state.
So here is a map from Wrapsnet. I know the numbers are hard to read but below you will find the numbers for the top ten resettlement states in the US from the beginning of Obama’s term in office up to today.
Total refugee admissions to the US from the fall of 2008 to the present day are 634,460:
Here are the top ten states with Texas at 64,198 refugees since October of 2008: