The new fiscal year (2018) is now ten days old and we see that the first of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s andPresident Trump’s proposed 45,000 refugees have arrived!
Top ethnic groups arriving in the group of 98 are from the DR Congo (25), Bhutan (21) and Somalia (16). For our friends in Minnesota know this: the Somalis were distributed to Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington and Wisconsin, but, as you know, they can and often do move within months to be with larger groups of Somalis in Minnesota, Ohio and in San Diego.
26 of the 98 are Muslims if you count the 4 Ahmadiyya from Pakistan who went to Maryland.
Here is where the first 98 were placed:
Top five states are Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and New Hampshire. Alaska and Hawaii got zip.
Editor: From time to time we post guest commentary. This is from Joanne Bregman. As werefocus our efforts at the state and local level, because we can’t count on Washington, this is an effective argument for you to make on the state level.
This is about States’ rights!
(emphasis below is mine)
Federal Cost Shifting of the Refugee Resettlement Program
Background
In 1980 the federal government formalized the refugee resettlement program by passing the Refugee Act of 1980. There was no mandate to force states to participate in this program. Federal appropriations to provide for medical and cash assistance for newly resettled refugees, was authorized for 36 months. Refugees were and still are, first required to use state Medicaid programs if they are eligible, before federal medical assistance funds are used.
When the federal law was passed, it provided that for each refugee brought to a state by a federal contractor, states would be reimbursed 100% for three full years, the state incurred cost of providing Medicaid and cash welfare. The law also provided, that for refugees who did not meet eligibility criteria for state Medicaid and cash welfare programs, they could instead, receive a federal subsidy – Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) and Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) for 36 months.
By 1991, even though the number of refugees being resettled was not decreasing, the federal government eliminated reimbursement to states for the state cost of resettling and supporting refugees with Medicaid and cash welfare.
In addition, the federal government reduced the RCA and RMA subsidy from 36 months to 8 months for refugees who do not qualify for state funded programs. States have no other choice but to assume the greater share of the voluntary federal program’s costs.
The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement told Congress early on in the program that the reason states were no longer being reimbursed for the state’s costs was because Congress didn’t appropriate enough money.
The 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy convened by Congress also documented that even the initial 3 years of 100% reimbursement to states, was not sufficient to “minimize the impact of refugees on community services.” The Commission was specifically referring to schools, hospitals and community support services.
In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office documented that the reduction in reimbursement to states for the federal refugee resettlement program, “costs for cash and medical assistance have shifted to state and local governments.” The National Governors Association has also questioned the federal cost shifting, stating that “[t]hese reductions represent a major federal policy change that shifts fiscal responsibility for meeting the basic needs of refugees from the federal government to states and localities.”
As the resettlement industry has grown, so has the cost to both federal and state governments but only the federal government controls its costs by appropriating annually “as available” while each state’s cost is driven by how much of the federal cost Congress chooses not to pay.
Be sure to see my post from earlier this past week about what you need to do on a state and local level, here.
I have to admit, I haven’t read it yet, but, for diehard grassroots investigators, know that the report is a treasure trove of information on the US Refugee Admissions Program and Trump’s 45,000 refugee ceiling *** for the year that began this past Sunday.
Don’t miss the tables at the end, often more useful than all the verbiage about why we need to save this or that ethnic group by hauling them to your town.
Here is the table that shows that the US admits the vast majority of permanent refugees.
Be sure to keep this so that the next time some Open Borders pusher says that Lebanon, Turkey, Germany and Jordan are doing more, remind them that ours are PERMANENT, not temporary residents. (note that this table uses calendar year numbers when we usually use fiscal year)
And, here is a table showing the costs of just the resettlement (this year, FY18, for up to 45,000 refugees).
Come to think of it, when those economic studies are done to ostensibly show how much refugees benefit America, do they ever show that it will cost the US taxpayer over $1 BILLION just to get 45,000 bodies in here?
Read the footnotes!
Please note that the anticipated costs do not include taxpayer funding for: educating the kids, Medicaid, some forms of cash assistance, food stamps, housing subsidies, interpreter costs, criminal justice system costs, etc.
Again, go here for the full report. One of the things I’ve noted over the years is that the report has no date on the cover. I can only guess that is because it is always very late and they don’t want any record of the fact that they skirt the law always on the whole determination/consultation process.
***Did you see that the Federation for American Immigration Reformcalled this a “responsible” number! Have friends like these been in the swamp too long?
Readers should know, that until very recently FAIR has not taken much interest in the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program.
In Trump’s new mixed bag, most of the eight countries are not significantly represented in the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
Editor: By the way, I assume you saw that the Supreme Court has cancelled arguments on the previous travel ban, here. I don’t know yet what that means for the refugee portion of the case.
Other than Somalia, Syria and Iran we don’t see many refugees from the other five countries. And, you should know, for Iran, that the vast majority of those we admit as refugees are Christians and other religious minorities.
As I remarked the other day, we do admit very large numbers of questionable refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma (Rohingya Muslims) and some additional African countries who will not be getting the extra scrutiny.
I checked Wrapsnet just now to see how many refugees we have admitted between FY07 and FY17 from the 8 ‘travel ban’ countries. But, don’t forget that many others from these countries get in to the US through other legal programs as well as illegally.
Refugees admitted FY07-FY17 (to date). Here is what I found:
Chad (182)
Iran (38,236 but only 405 of those are Muslims while over 20,000 are Christians)
Libya (12)
N. Korea (203)
Syria (21,110)
Yemen (146)
Somalia (67,158)
Venezuela (13)
The new vetting rules may have a large impact on Somalis entering the US….
Check out here where all those Somalis have been planted. Minnesota tops the list with 8,529. But that doesn’t tell the whole Minnesota story as Somalis resettled elsewhere move in large numbers as what the USRAP calls “secondary migrants” to MN.
Alaska welcomed 294, but Hawaii (the state that loves diversity) welcomed zero!
In 2013 the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (57 Muslim countries), which has a powerful UN presence, wanted to open an office in Burma to ‘aid’ the Rohingya. Here fearless Buddhist monks said ‘no way.’ Read those signs! https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2013/11/18/the-oic-does-not-need-an-office-in-burma-myanmar/
Maybe you haven’t noticed yet, but Syrian refugees are last years’ refugee poster children.
Now the media is moving on to the Rohingya (click here for what I think is the best pronunciation). Everywhere I turn there is media coverage of the Burmese Buddhist government attempting to limit the expansion and disruptive influence of its Muslim minority population.
I want to move on to other topics this morning, so I can’t possibly fill you in on ten years of posts I’ve written (203 so far) on the Rohingya problem. Someone should write a book and I’ve done a lot of research for wannabe authors in my category called Rohingya Reports, here.
But, I want you to know this morning that the strife in Burma (aka Myanmar) with the Muslim Rohingya (fleeing to Bangladesh, a Muslim country) is being placed front and center at the UN just as President Trump speaks there today.
Hereis Amnesty Internationaltaking its whack. Surprisingly, there is one little line in this article that you don’t usually see as most reports depict the Rohingya as pure as the driven snow. And, of course, it is ALL Trump’s fault!
“The USA’s policy towards refugees has to be viewed in a global context. In the shadow of Trump’s cruel policies, other countries around the world have continued to dehumanize refugees and turn their backs on them,” said Salil Shetty.
Salil Shetty: “…Trump’s cruel policies…”
“Whether it’s the EU condemning refugees to abuse and exploitation at the hands of criminal gangs in Libya, or Australia subjecting refugees to severe physical and psychological damage in its offshore detention centers, rich countries have contributed substantially to the alarming deterioration of refugee rights.
“It is against this backdrop of governments’ callous treatment of people fleeing conflict and violence that the world’s fastest growing refugee crisis is unfolding before our eyes in Bangladesh.”
Bangladesh is a Muslim country and most Burmese believe the Rohingya are just a Bangladeshi ethnic group that illegally inserted itself in Burma decades ago.
Trump is getting an earful in New York this week, but he likely will never be told about the last few words in this paragraph….
World leaders gathering in New York for this year’s UN General Assembly are expected to discuss the spiraling situation in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, from where the long-persecuted Rohingya population have been forced to flee because of an unlawful and totally disproportionate military response to attacks by a Rohingya armed group.
Gotta give Amnesty a little credit, they are at least reporting that the Rohingya have been agitators of recent waves of violence.
You need to know! This is not about some far off Asian country!
We have admitted 19,110 Burmese Muslims to the US since FY07 (according to Wrapsnet).
One of the contractors welcoming the devout Rohingya to your towns and cities is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. See my story, here, in 2013.
