Priscilla Alvarez writing at The Atlantic runs through a partial list of the nine federal refugee contractors and tells us how many staffers have been fired because of that mean old Donald Trump not sending them enough refugee paying clients.
Doing well by doing good! Writer Alvarez features the International Rescue Committee. Bet she doesn’t know its head honcho, Brit David Miliband, makes a cool nearly $700,000 annual salary. He won’t be losing his job!
There really isn’t much new here (like so many of the fear-mongering stories the lapdog media is publishing these days, there isn’t much here that you haven’t heard over the last few months), however, it is worth posting for a couple of reasons.
First, we are reminded that the US State Department is rumored to be preparing to cut one of the nine federal contractors completely off the federal dole!
Which will it be?
My guess is that they might cut out the smallest—The Ethiopian Community Development Council. It surely won’t be the giants: International Rescue Committee or the US Conference of Catholic Bishops!
It could be one of the others (besides ECDC) that is almost COMPLETELY funded by you through your tax dollars. See the list below.***
Of course he doesn’t mean permanently, but for more than a year until they are on their feet.
“….why not give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is?”
(Reihan Salam)
At the outset, I don’t know where to begin with Reihan Salam’s reform proposal at The Atlanticyesterday because I don’t believe the writer is a serious longtime student of the US Refugee Admissions Program, but I like one of his proposals!
And, I am happy to see that he is opening a discussion of reform of our present flawed system.
Affluent city dwellers are some of the most vocal champions of refugee admission—and they’re in a position to assist.
This I know—-the refugee industry is likely going nuts over any serious reform idea being proposed that would break-up their cushy and financially lucrative arrangement with the federal government.
Again, author Salam makes so many points I don’t know which to address first so we will take them in the order he gives them.
Here are a few snips leading up to what I think is his key point. Emphasis is mine.
Without the consent of Congress, President Trump can only do so much to curb immigrant admissions overall. But he does have expansive authority over refugee admissions, and he is using it to implement at least part of his restrictionist agenda.
Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president, in consultation with Congress, is charged with setting a refugee ceiling, a hard limit on total refugee admissions, which can be adjusted in tune with changing foreign-policy priorities.
Then here (below) I agree there was/is bipartisan support in Congress, but not because the program was “an invaluable foreign-policy tool!” It is because it brings in cheap legal labor for the Chamber of Commerce and big business on the political right, and it brings in reliable future Democrat voters on the left. (The foreign-policy tool argument is a recent refugee industry talking point they have sold to the likes of the Heritage Foundation.)
Salam continues:
Before Trump’s singular presidential campaign, widespread skepticism about the wisdom of admitting refugees in large numbers had little effect on policy makers, as leading members of both major parties shared a commitment to the refugee resettlement program, often because they saw refugee admissions as an invaluable foreign-policy tool.
That elite bipartisan consensus is now a thing of the past. Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top policy advisers, has pressed for even steeper reductions in the refugee ceiling for the coming fiscal year, to the consternation of senior diplomats and military officials. We’ll soon know if Miller will get his way. I would be surprised if he did not. For one, Trump apparently believes that lowering the refugee ceiling is good politics, and there is reason to believe he’s right.
Unlike almost every other tool of immigration policy at the president’s disposal, lowering the refugee ceiling is virtually backlash-proof.
I guess Salam does not read RRW or he would know how vigorously the nine federal contractors*** are attempting to whip up the backlash.
But, hey, okay let’s go with the idea that Trump will gain more politically by lowering refugee admissions than he will lose!
Salam then goes to the subject of “public charge” which is an old concept that this administration is hopefully bringing back and that is the idea that immigrants to America should not become dependent on welfare. It is a story for another day.
I realize now why I’m having such trouble with Salam’s op-ed—-because he is all over the map and now we jump back to the idea that there is not much of a public constituency for ever larger refugee admission numbers. But he does give us an idea for those of you working on Congressional campaigns! On the campaign trail try to pin down the Democrats on the issue of refugees! Salam suggests they are avoiding expressing support for more refugees!
….Refugee immigrants aren’t an especially large or vocal political constituency. Recent arrivals are chiefly concerned with gaining a foothold in American life, while those who arrived in the country decades ago from one country aren’t necessarily motivated by a burning desire to welcome refugees from others. Though there are many activists who will sharply criticize the Trump administration for admitting so few refugees, and though there is majority support for admitting refugees in the abstract, don’t expect Democratic congressional candidates in competitive races to be among them.The recent arrest of Omar Ameen, an Iraqi refugee who stands accused of concealing that he was a murderer who had sworn allegiance to the Islamic State, is a discomfiting reminder that the vetting of humanitarian migrants has never been foolproof. A Trump White House consumed with scandal would love nothing more than to make refugee admissions a central issue, which is why Democrats are unlikely to take the bait.
Author Salam then tells us that the military wants especially Iraqi refugees admitted as a kind of bait to get them to help us there (we told you about ithere). Why the heck are we still there offering one-way tickets to America to Iraqis anyway?
Next he throws out the ‘help them where they live’ argument. Yes, good.
And, finally we get to the nub of it….
Reform the refugee program by setting up private sponsorship which is something worth seriously looking at, but not as an add-on to the present flawed system.
(I’m breaking up these final paragraphs because I find them almost unreadable as written!)
Salam continues:
Does this mean that there is no place for humanitarian immigration to the U.S.?
Not at all. There will always be compassionate Americans who long to shelter families from strife-torn corners of the world, and there should be avenues open to them. However, our current approach to refugee resettlement does a poor job of leveraging this desire to do good. For decades, the State Department has worked in concert with a set of voluntary agencies, or “volags,” that are provided with a modest amount of federal funding to help refugees establish themselves on American soil.
Because most recent refugees to the U.S. have modest skills, the process of adjustment can be exceptionally difficult. Even when they do secure employment relatively quickly, their market incomes tend to be quite low, which is why they often depend on safety-net benefits, refundable tax credits, and other transfers designed to keep Americans out of poverty.
Other countries, including, most prominently, Canada, allow for private sponsorship, in which individuals, families, and community groups pledge their own resources to help refugees navigate their new lives for up to a year. The Niskanen Center, a centrist think tank, has proposed a private sponsorship system for the U.S. as a means of boosting refugee resettlement, and though the idea hasn’t gained much ground under Trump, a modified version of it could have bipartisan appeal. [The great flaw in the Libertarian Niskanen Center’s proposal is that it is designed to get MORE refugees in to the US as it would be in addition to the present system.—ed]
Trump aide Stephen Miller (right) is considered the chief architect of the President’s policies regarding refugees.
Restrictionist critics of the status quo often point to the fact that the volags [I call them federal contractors—ed] often resettle refugees in struggling communities, where costs are low and federal funds go further—yet where local public services are often stretched thin, and the long-term labor market prospects of refugees aren’t as bright as they might be in more prosperous communities.
At the same time, some of the most vocal champions of refugee resettlement are affluent cosmopolitans who reside in well-off communities, and who might see devoting some portion of their incomes and their daily lives to assisting refugee immigrants as a source of pride and fulfillment.The Stephen Millers of the world might deride such women and men as romantic cosmopolitans, and perhaps they have a point. But why not give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is?
Imagine an overhauled Refugee Act that allows for private sponsorship. The executive branch could set one ceiling for refugees who’d be provided for under the existing refugee resettlement program (for example, the 15,000 that’s been reported in the press as the Trump administration’s target for the coming fiscal year) and another (say, an additional 45,000) for refugees who’d be cared for by carefully vetted U.S. families who volunteer to provide for their basic needs for an extended period—I’d recommend a much longer period than a single year, as under the Canadian system, as expecting refugees to achieve self-sufficiency in such a short time strikes me as unrealistic and, just as importantly, the commitment involved shouldn’t be entered into lightly.
Private sponsors should be subject to oversight, as it would be outrageous to allow Americans to take advantage of refugee immigrants, and outcomes for the refugees they sponsor should be carefully monitored, so as to help identify best practices for researchers and future sponsors.
If broad-minded Americans were to come forward en masse to sponsor refugees under these demanding conditions, it would demonstrate the seriousness of their support for welcoming newcomers who’ve endured profound torments while giving the likes of Trump and Miller an implicit rebuke. If they didn’t, we’d at least know where we stand.
Okay, let’s do it! Let’s assume Reihan Salam has a serious reform proposal for consideration by Congress.
Calling all wealthy humanitarians!
Let’s see how many “broad-minded” wealthy people will come forward to sponsor refugee families for more than a year, pay for all their needs, find them health care, apartments and jobs, teach them English, get the kids in school, fill out all their government paperwork, etc.
But we do it as the only system for admitting refugees and we get rid of the contractor middlemen listed below!
Readers, send me your guesses as to how many wealthy city-dwelling Americans will raise their hands to sponsor impoverished Somalis, Iraqis and Congolese (others!) for a year or more in their neighborhoods!
(Reihan Salam had above suggested 45,000 could be privately sponsored!)
***These below are the nine federal refugee resettlement contractors.
You might be sick of seeing this list almost every day, but a friend once told me that people need to see something seven times before it completely sinks in, so it seems to me that 70, or even 700 isn’t too much!
And, besides I have new readers every day.
The present US Refugee Admissions Program will never be reformed if the system of paying the contractors by the head stays in place and the contractors are permitted to act as Leftwing political agitation groups, community organizers and lobbyists paid on our dime!
And, to add insult to injury they pretend it is all about ‘humanitarianism.’
The number in parenthesis is the percentage of their income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the refugees into your towns and cities and get them signed up for their services (aka welfare)! And, get them registered to vote eventually!
From my most recent accounting, here. However, please see that Nayla Rush at the Center for Immigration Studieshas done an update of their income!
Actually, no, it is due weeks before the 30th of September as we told readers here in 2015!
Is Congress shirking its duty to America on refugee admissions? Yes, and has done so for more than 2 decades!
Although the President is tasked by law with setting the CAP (aka CEILING) for the number of refugees that could be admitted in the coming fiscal year, his administration is supposed to hold a consultation with Congress (House and Senate Judiciary Committees) after those committees have held hearings on the President’s proposed plan.
You might be saying, well yes, but if Congress holds hearings, the Open Borders Left will turn them in to a circus. That could happen, but it is no reason for the Refugee Act of 1980to be ignored as it has been for decades! Either follow the law or dump it!
What got me thinking about this today is a news story from the National Catholic Reporter which says the plan is due on September 30th (new refugees would be arriving the next day!) and where we learn that Catholic lobbyists are on the Hill trying to get the attention of lawmakers so they might rain hell down on Trump.
Rumors are that Trump may set the refugee CAP for FY19 at 15,000-25,000 the lowest since the Ted Kennedy/Jimmy Carter law came in to being in 1980 and the contractors which include the US Conference of Catholic Bishops*** are steaming mad.
As usual, the report never mentions that the contractors are paid on a per refugee head basis, and so a huge drop in numbers means a lot less of your money will flow to the Bishops’ bank account.
Advocates prepare for possible cuts in refugee admissions to the US
Amid reports that this trend [low admission levels—ed] could continue, with a possible presidential determination of 15,000-25,000 for fiscal year 2019 when the decision is due Sept. 30, Catholic groups are combatting misinformation about refugees and advocating to members of Congress and administration officials in an effort to convince Trump to raise the cap.
Most Reverend Joe Vásquez, Bishop of Austin is chairman of the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services Office. http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/who-we-are.cfm
A refugee ceiling of 15,000 during an unprecedented refugee crisis “would be so low it’s laughable,” said Donald Kerwin, executive director of Center for Migration Studies of New York, an educational institute connected with the Scalabrini International Migration Network.
During past refugee crises, “the United States’ response was central to the global response and to resolving the situations of these massive levels of refugees and it’s not playing that role right now,” Kerwin added, calling reduced support for refugees “totally antithetical to our own history and our own values.”
[….]
Although the decision of how many refugees to admit is up to the president, the administration is required to consult with members of the House and Senate judiciary committees. Congress authorizes funding for the program.
Bill Canny, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ conference’s Migration and Refugee Services and Joan Rosenhauer, executive director of Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, both said their organizations have been engaging with Congress and administration officials in an effort to influence the decision.
The Justice for Immigrants webinar called on participants to visit or write their representatives in Congress, or sign a letter from Catholic leaders calling for a higher presidential determination.
I’m suggesting that 15,000-25,000 is too high. It should be ZERO until Congress undertakes to reform the whole US Refugee Admissions Program.
***These below are the nine federal refugee resettlement contractors.
You might be sick of seeing this list almost every day (it has been 4 whole days since I posted it!), but a friend once told me that people need to see something seven times before it completely sinks in, so it seems to me that 70, or even 700 isn’t too much!
And, besides I have new readers every day.
The present US Refugee Admissions Program will never be reformed if the system of paying the contractors by the head stays in place and the contractors are permitted to act as Leftwing political agitation groups, community organizers and lobbyists paid on our dime!
And, to add insult to injury they pretend it is all about ‘humanitarianism.’
The number in parenthesis is the percentage of their income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the refugees into your towns and cities and get them signed up for their services (aka welfare)! And, get them registered to vote eventually!
From my most recent accounting, here. However, please see that Nayla Rush at the Center for Immigration Studieshas done an update of their income!
In September of last year, the Trump Administration set the CEILING for refugee admissions at 45,000 for the fiscal year that began October 1, 2017.
As of the last day of August the number actually admitted so far is 19,899.
Previously George Bush held the record for the lowest number of refugee admitted to the US. President Trump is set to break that record.
That would be an average monthly admissions rate of 1,809 for FY18. Assuming that rate continues (although August was below average at 1,685), total admissions for the year will come in at less than 22,000 for the entire fiscal year.
I looked around to see if I saw any anti-Trump screeches from the federal refugee contractors***, but not so far. Maybe they are all at the beach.
Here (below) is a map fromWrapsnetshowing where this year’s ‘New Americans’ were placed.
See how ‘welcoming’ your state has been this year!
They cite their “collective scriptural mandate” as the reason for their demands that you, the American taxpayer, pay for their ‘religious’ charity.
Honestly, this is probably one of the most maddening aspects of this subject—-why on earth do they think the Bible says that government must take care of the poor?
Why can’t these “faith” leaders find ways to take care of the impoverished in the world (starting in their own towns!) using their own money!
(Or they can volunteer to help the third world in the third world!)
Your new neighbors? I had to laugh about the photo the Christian Post uses to illustrate this news. Do these ‘refugees’ in Greece make you want to invite them home? Where is the photo of mothers and babies? And, why is one guy laughing? Maybe because they fooled these Europeans!
