That is how the Niskanen Center(a Libertarian think tank that promotes open borders) bills its upcoming policy briefing. They believe we need the steady supply of cheap labor for big business. And, apparently want to help the Dems increase their voter base!
The panel includes the HERITAGE FOUNDATION!
(See earlier posts on how the supposedly conservative Heritage Foundation has jumped on the increase refugee admissions bandwagon.)
New Briefing: Republicans Make The Case for Refugees
The Trump administration has decreased refugee resettlement to a record low level, upending decades of bipartisan support. Historically, Republican administrations have resettled high numbers of refugees in furtherance of national security, foreign policy, and humanitarian objectives. [And, because they shill for big corporations like the meatpackers!—ed]
Moderated by Niskanen’s Matthew La Corte, the panel will explore the policy and politics of improving and expanding our refugee resettlement system, and how to rebuild bipartisan support for refugees. [They clearly think that a Biden Administration is on the way!—ed]
Kori Schake, American Enterprise Institute
Former Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (R-FL-27)
Trump’s refugee ceiling is bad for everyone but bigots
Frankly I don’t pay any attention to the name-callers, except that they invigorate me to keep going just when I am ready for blogger retirement.
Once they start making charges against me and others who believe we have a right to know about a program that is changing America—a right to talk about it, to understand how a federal program works and a right to object to it—that we are racists, bigots and xenophobes, I know they are know-nothings.
And, they are weak because name-calling is the last refuge of political agitators whose team is losing.
Here is some of what Munro penned at Breitbartafter asking the bigot—me—what I thought of Rampell’s charge.
Washington Post: Only ‘Bigots’ Oppose Large Refugee Inflows
President Donald Trump’s decision to accept 15,000 refugees in 2020 only helps “bigots,” says Catherine Rampell, a pro-migration columnist at the Washington Post.
“The only constituency helped by Trump’s latest cruelty are the bigots and knee-jerk nationalists crafting his policies,” she wrote, under the headline “Trump’s refugee ceiling is bad for everyone but bigots.”
Rampell’s jibe was dismissed by Ann Corcoran, founder of Refugee resettlement Watch, who says the federal importation of refugees expands American poverty, slows technological innovation, and fuels civic conflict. She responded:
There’s no sense trying to argue with [progresives] except to turn it back and say; ‘What about our own poor people? Why aren’t they interested in taking care of our poor Americans? Our homeless? Why are refugees and immigrants somehow cooler and more desirable to take care of than our own poor people? Have we run out of poor Americans to take care of?’ No, clearly, we have not run out of poor Americans.
Advocates for migration are eager to claim moral superiority over the Americans who want to help Americans, said Corcoran. “They believe we’re bigots — that’s what they’ve been saying for decades — but they know big business uses these refugees to keep wages low,” she said.
So the hidden agenda for Rampell and many others progressives is political ambition, not charity, Corcoran said. “The bottom line is that these immigrants vote for Democrats,” she said.
“Big business gets the cheap labor, the Democrats get the voters, and Americans get hammered with this humanitarian [B.S.],” she said.
The Open Borders Lobby with its lawyers is not happy with Trump’s “extreme vetting” and with the help of Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollenare prepping their friends in the media and in Congress for the day when they expect Harris/Biden will fling open America’s gates to tens of thousands of new refugees from countries like Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Biden has already signaled that 125,000 is not out of the question beginning in January 2021. Any enhanced security screening would necessarily have to be discarded to facilitate numbers like that.
This report was made possible by the efforts of many people outside of IRAP, particularly our clients and co-counsel in JFS [Jewish Family Service of Seattle] v. Trump and Doe v. Wolf. In litigating JFS v. Trump, we worked with the National Immigration Law Center, HIAS, Perkins Coie LLP, and pro bono attorneys Lauren Aguiar, Mollie M. Kornreich, and Abigail Sheehan Davis.
In addition, we are grateful to the office of Senator Chris Van Hollen for his advocacy on behalf of refugees and for sharing the reports to Congress on refugee admissions and vetting that informed this report.
It really doesn’t matter what the report says, this is about setting the tone for the anticipated return of mass migration to make up for what they will call the ‘lost Trump years.’
Bishops and advocates denounce Trump administration’s historic low refugee cap
WASHINGTON (CNS) — The steep slope, appearing almost as a vertical line, is a stunning mark by the Trump administration on what was once a refugee program recognized around the world as a model to welcome the tyrannized and persecuted masses.
Late on the night of Sept. 30 as the annual deadline for setting a figure for refugee admittances approached, the administration announced it would bring the refugee cap—the maximum number of displaced people the country decides to resettle in a federal fiscal year—to a historic low: 15,000.
The average during presidencies of both Republicans and Democrats had been around 95,000. [See how they got this 95,000—ed] But the announcement on the new cap doesn’t mean the bad news for refugees, or organizations that help them, ended there.
“It’s not official, the president still has to sign it,” so no refugees can enter the country until that happens, said Ashley Feasley, the director of policy for Migration and Refugee Services at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “I have no idea when he’ll sign it.”
Feasley said there’s a “pause” until Oct. 26, which means nothing will happen until then.
Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, U.S.C.C.B. president, and Bishop Mario E. Dorsonville, auxiliary bishop of Washington and chairman of the U.S.C.C.B.’s Committee on Migration, called the low number on admissions, “heartbreaking,” given “the global need and the capacity and wealth of the United States.”
Then we have the International Rescue Committee weighing in….
Nazanin Ash, the vice president of public policy at the International Rescue Committee, also deplored the decision:“The number of refugees worldwide has grown by over 14 million over the last four years, while the Trump Administration has lowered refugee admissions levels by over 80 percent, vastly reduced access to the program for Muslim and Black refugees, severely reduced the number of persecuted religious allowed into the country, and ignored the world’s largest refugee crises.”
She added, “The administration has reneged on U.S. humanitarian obligations, trampled on long-held values, undermined U.S. interests and its own stated policy goals—including by failing to provide safety to thousands in need of refuge because of their assistance to U.S. troops or because of religious or political persecution.”
In response, HIAS President and CEO Mark Hetfield said: “It is a sad moment when our country shows such weakness when it should be leading. The administration’s decision to set a record low number of refugees at a time of record high needs — and without even consulting with Congress, as required by law — shows how far we have fallen. Not only will refugees who have fled violence and persecution suffer, but so will our country, as refugees who become new Americans have contributed so much to this country.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES LOWEST REFUGEE ADMISSIONS CEILING IN AMERICAN HISTORY
“In just four years, this Administration has cut the refugee resettlement program from 110,000 to a historic low of fifteen thousand. At a time of unprecedented global need, today’s decision to further cut the refugee admissions ceiling is a complete abdication of our humanitarian and moral duty.” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
By the way, CWS is the crop walk organization, so if your church is holding a crop walk you are contributing to changing America through migration.
Trump Administration Violates Moral and Legal Obligations, Delays Setting Refugee Admissions Goal, Halting Historic Resettlement Program
Rev. John L. McCullough, President and CEO of Church World Service issued the following statement:
“The Trump Administration’s failure to comply with the Refugee Act and their subsequent delays and cuts to the refugee program are moral failures and a disgrace to the American legacy of welcome.
Refugee resettlement is not a partisan issue. Each day that resettlement is paused is a matter of life and death for the thousands of refugees waiting to rebuild their lives. Congress must not overlook this blatant disregard for human life and our legal process. They must demand that they be consulted as soon as possible and that the refugee program be restored.”
“The proposed refugee resettlement number of 15,000, a more than 80% cut over historic norms, is unacceptable. Our values as a nation and as people of faith demand that we take action when people’s lives are in danger. But for the past three years, President Trump and his administration have strayed so far from these basic principles in the name of their cruel, racist and partisan goals that the life-saving refugee resettlement program is a shadow of what it once was.I urge all Americans to insist that Congress hold the White House accountable to operating the refugee program as required by U.S. law.”
I’ll have more as I am sure this isn’t the last of what we will hear from the contractors.
***For new readers these (below) are the nine federally-funded refugee contractors that operate as a huge conveyor belt monopolizing all refugee placement in America.
And, they do not limit their advocacy toward only legal immigration programs, but are heavily involved in supporting the lawlessness at our borders.
The question isn’t as much about refugees per se, but about who is running federal immigration policy now and into the future?
I continue to argue that these nine contractors are the heart of America’s Open Borders movement and thus there can never be long-lasting reform of US immigration policy when these nine un-elected phony non-profits are paid by the taxpayers to work as community organizers pushing an open borders agenda.
The refugee industry is getting really desperate as they bring out their old ‘bigwigs’ and use the ghost of Ronald Reagan to stick it to ‘orange man’ who is trying to limit the number of diseased people entering the US.
Reagan refused to allow fear of disease to halt refugee resettlement, and Trump shouldn’t either
We set up protocols and rules to ensure Southeast Asians fleeing communism didn’t spread tuberculosis.
[Before I give you a few snips from what he says, know that we are admitting refugees and have been for decades who have TB and some of those have active TB. I always thought that would be something that would make the general public sit up and take notice of flaws in the supposed ‘health screening’ of refugees, but so far it hasn’t. Obviously Trump has thankfully noticed. See my extensive file on refugee TB by clicking here.]
Now here is some of what Purcell said, but please read it all (emphasis is mine):
Rep. Sam Hall [Democrat!—ed] was relentless as he questioned me about the Indochina refugees we proposed to admit to the United States: Are these refugees free of tuberculosis? Is the American public in danger?I recalled these congressional oversight questions from 40 years ago with great trepidation when I learned recently about the Trump administration’s current attempts to bar refugees and migrants on health grounds.
It was September 1981 as I pondered questions from the late Democratic congressman from Texas; eight months into the new Reagan administration, I was representing the State Department at these “consultations” hearings as acting director of the Bureau for Refugee Programs. Along with me were acting representatives from the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare and Justice, and the Voice of America. The Refugee Act of 1980 required administration representatives to consult with the judiciary committees of both houses on future admissions. Rep. Ron Mazzoli of Kentucky was in the chair and all members were present, as well as an overflow audience.
…..my colleague Paul Wolfowitz (assistant secretary for East Asia and the Pacific) and I had agonized for weeks about the deteriorating refugee situation in Asia and the critical importance of these make-or-break hearings. Wolfowitz warned, “Vietnamese refugees continue to flee the new communist regime that took over after the fall of Saigon, and persecuted victims from Laos and Cambodia are also on the move. All are flocking to the non-communist states of Southeast Asia. Our experts warn that refugee flight shows no signs of ending.”
The State Department’s advance team had alerted us that TB was a major concern. When Hall raised his questions, I described the medical checks we conducted for refugees prior to departure from Asia. Each was carefully screened before departure by the Geneva-based Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, using guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Public Health Service. I described two types of TB, communicable and non-communicable, and emphasized that “no refugee with communicable TB was admitted to the United States; while a few with non-communicable TB had been admitted, they were not a threat and could best be treated here.” [Yep, we took on the role of treating thousands upon thousands of refugees with latent TB and that job went to local health departments in your communities—ed]
The committee was not satisfied with my testimony, and the notion of an admissions moratorium had arisen.My reaction was clear and unambiguous: a moratorium would lead to disaster and death in Southeast Asia and must be avoided. I realized my explanations had not gotten through when the national news that evening reported, “500,000 ticking time bombs in the U.S.”
An admission moratorium was contemplated by the Hill committee!
Readers, this is quite a revelation. Did the committee think they had the power under the Refuge Act to suggest such a thing? Today “consultations” happen behind closed doors with only the principals involved—the State Department rep and some committee chairmen.
Again, the consultation today is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC!
Later, when the U.S. accepted the protocol to the U.N. Convention Related to the Status of Refugees in 1968, the president accepted that, “deportation of a refugee is a particularly serious measure, and it would not be humanitarian to deport a refugee for reasons of health.” By this action, the United States recognized that it could not expel a refugee for a “contagious disease” when we could offer acceptable treatments. Congress codified the obligation in the Refugee Act of 1980.
It became clear that actions we proposed were consistent with evolving policy and practice. Nevertheless, several members remained unconvinced. When the committee voted several days later, the moratorium was defeated by one vote. This was a narrow and a key victory, as it confirmed the legal and policy precedent for the next 40 years.
That must have been the first and last strong stand Congress ever took on the Carter/Kennedy law that opened the door to impoverished (and sick) people to legally flood into America.
The refugee industry today wants no restrictions for health reasons. Our healthcare system (which you pay for) can just fix their health problems they say.
But, shockingly, the idea is with us again with the Trump administration’s proposed Security Bars and Processing Rule. According to Yael Schacher, historian with Refugees International, this rule would “expand the definition of national security to incorporate public health bars in an unprecedented, unnecessary, and arbitrary way that would enable refoulement, or the return of asylum seekers to persecution.”
As with hundreds of other rules and policy shifts designed to restrict and limit refugee and immigrant admissions to the United States, this rule fails to safeguard public health or uphold laws and treaties protecting people fleeing persecution. Getting a jump-start, the CDC has already put an order in place that closes the border to those without documents on health grounds, regardless of persecution. [“without documents?” means they are not refugees selected through the US Refugee Admissions Program.—ed]