But he is not alone. Continue reading to see which other Republican Senators have joined with some of the most vocal Open Borders Dems in opposing (slamming!) the President on the refugee ceiling for the new fiscal year which began on Tuesday.
Lankford slams Trump plan to reduce refugee admissions
Sen. James Lankford on Friday came out against the Trump administration’s plan to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States.
“I’m disappointed to see that the administration has once again decided to decrease the number of refugees we allow into our country,” Lankford, R-Oklahoma City, said.
Lankford leader of the pack in 2018 as ‘faith’ leaders gather on the Hill to oppose the President and support ‘Dreamers’ and to push for more refugees for your towns and cities. https://stream.org/immigration-debate-lankford-faith-leaders/
“Over the last few months, the Department of Homeland Security implemented multiple policies that have resulted in a decrease in migrants at the U.S. southern border.
“While I appreciate the administration’s focus on curbing illegal immigration and caring for asylum seekers, that doesn’t mean we should continue to reduce the admittance of refugees who are fleeing from persecution in their home countries to support these policies.”
[….]
Lankford and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., sent a letter last month wrote a letter signed by other senators to three of Trump’s cabinet secretaries urging the refugee cap to be raised from this year’s level. [That would mean they were pushing for more than 30,000!—ed]
The letter, signed by several other senators from both parties, states, “At a time when we are facing the ‘highest levels of displacement on record,’ according to the United Nations Refugee Agency, we urge you to increase the refugee resettlement cap and to admit as many refugees as possible within that cap. America has a responsibility to promote compassion and democracy around the world through assistance to vulnerable and displaced people.”
The letter is here, but as I mentioned previously no specific number of refugees is proposed leaving them free to blast the President for whatever number he recommended. (The Open Borders agitators were pushing for 95,000 knowing full well that would never happen.)
Here are the signers of the letter in addition to Lankford and his sidekick, Senator Chris Coons (D) of Delaware.
I think it’s kind of handy to have this list of the hardcore promoters of more refugees in the US Senate. (Rs are on the Left and Dems on the right.)
As many of you may recall, at this time last year the Trump Administration set the CEILING, for resettlement of refugees largely chosen by the UN for the fiscal year, at 30,000. And, that is exactly how many refugees were admitted and distributed to 48 states and the District of Columbia.
That 30,000 does not include the Special Immigrant Visas (SIV)from Iraq (181) and Afghanistan (7,501!) who entered the US this past fiscal year with all of the benefits refugees receive (welfare, food stamps, job counseling, housing, medical care and the list goes on!)
For the fiscal year that begins today, the President hasreduced the ceiling (or cap) to 18,000and by doing so has lit a firestorm in the refugee industry that includes Open Borders advocacy groups, federal resettlement contractors, and businesses which are freely admitting that they need the steady flow of cheap legal labor (labor that doesn’t complain and can’t readily leave!).
So from what countries did they originate and which states were the most ‘welcoming?’
The top five sending countries (FY19) in descending order are these:
DR Congo
Burma
Ukraine
Afghanistan (if you add the SIVs, Afghans would make up the second highest number of taxpayer supported ‘refugees’ for this year.)
Eritrea
Muslim refugees made up about 16% of the 30,000. However, virtually all of the SIVs are Muslims so that would push the percentage of arriving ‘refugees’ who are Muslims to 33%. No Muslim ban!
Here is a map showing where the 30,000 were placed. There is a spread sheet detailing where the SIVs were placed, but it isn’t in this handy format.
I know the numbers are difficult to read so here are the top ten ‘welcoming’ states for FY19:
Texas
Washington
New York
California
Kentucky
Ohio
North Carolina
Arizona
Georgia
Michigan
Teddy and Uncle Joe were chief sponsors of the Refugee Act of 1980, yet Delaware, Biden’s home state, rarely gets any refugees. Hmmmmm!
Two states received no refugees.
Wyoming has never agreed to resettling refugees in the history of the program. And, then Hawaii rarely gets any.
Delaware got one refugee in FY19 and it also usually only gets a handful—a fact that has always made me laugh since their homeboy, Joe Biden, was one of Ted Kennedy’s sidekicks when the program was created in 1979/80. (Ha! And, don’t say it is because the state is geographically small, RI is smaller than Delaware and it usually gets a bundle!).
West Virginia got 2 refugees, and the District of Columbia got a whopping total of 5 refugees!
In case you are wondering how the nine federal refugee resettlement contractors stay afloat through lean times—when the President cuts the flow of new refugees (paying clients!) coming into the country—here is one example.
Check out this listof new federal grant recipients employed by the feds to teach immigrants how to pass the naturalization test!
Over $10 million out the door to the likes of Catholic Charities, HIAS, Lutheran Social Services and others whose federal grants for new refugees had slowed in recent years.
Gotta get all those new voters signed up pronto! (Hat tip: Steven)
USCIS Awards FY 2019 Citizenship and Assimilation Grants
Nearly $10 Million Will Expand Citizenship Preparation Services in 24 States
On September 26, 2019, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the award of nearly $10 million in grants to 41 organizations that prepare lawful permanent residents (LPRs) for naturalization. The grants also aim to promote prospective citizens’ assimilation into American civic life by funding educational programs designed to increase their knowledge of English, U.S. history, and civics. Located in 24 states, these organizations will receive federal funding to support citizenship preparation services for LPRs through September 2021.
I can see giving grants to community colleges, school systems, libraries, but refugee agencies, SEIU and something called Progreso Latino and Women for Afghan Women?
Could their students be getting a little indoctrination by progressive Dems along with their English language and civic lessons?
And, why don’t we see any politically conservative non-profits getting some of this grant money?
(Groups highlighted in red are involved in refugee resettlement)
1199SEIU League Training and Upgrading Fund New York, NY $250,000
Access California Services Anaheim, CA $250,000
Asian Counseling and Referral Service Seattle, WA $250,000
Baker Ripley Houston, TX $250,000
BPSOS Center for Community Advancement Westminster,CA $250,000
Burmese American Community Institute, Inc. Indianapolis, IN $225,000
Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans New Orleans, LA $225,000
Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas, Inc.Overland Park, KS $250,000
Catholic Charities of Northern Nevada Reno, NV $250,000
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa, CA $237,500
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Fort Worth, Inc.Fort Worth, TX $250,000
Church World Service, Inc.Durham, NC $237,500
Emerald Isle Immigration Center Woodside, NY $250,000
English Skills Learning Center Salt Lake City, UT $250,000
Fresno Unified School District Fresno, CA $250,000
Hartford Public Library Hartford, CT $225,000
HIAS and Council Migration Services of Philadelphia, Inc.Philadelphia, PA $250,000
Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota Saint Paul, MN $250,000
Instituto del Progreso Latino Chicago, IL $225,000
International Institute of New England, Inc.Boston, MA $250,000
International Rescue Committee, Inc.San Diego, CA $250,000
International Rescue Committee, Inc.Baltimore, MD $250,000
International Rescue Committee, Inc.Turlock, CA $237,500
International Rescue Committee, Inc.Seattle, WA $250,000
Jewish Family & Vocational Service of Middlesex County, Inc. Milltown, NJ $250,000
Jewish Family Service of San Diego San Diego, CA $225,000
Jewish Family Services of Western Massachusetts, Inc.Springfield, MA $250,000
Kentucky Refugee Ministries, Inc.Louisville, KY $250,000
Literacy New Jersey Edison, NJ $250,000
Lutheran Community Services Northwest Portland, OR $250,000
Lutheran Social Services of Colorado Denver, CO $250,000
Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Minneapolis, MN $237,500
Montgomery College Rockville, MD $250,000
Pars Equality Center Sherman Oaks, CA $225,000
Progreso Latino, Inc.Central Falls, RI $250,000
School Board of Miami-Dade, FLMiami, FL $225,000
Shorefront YM-YWHA of Brighton-Manhattan Beach, Inc.Brooklyn, NY $250,000
Skyline Literacy Harrisonburg, VA $250,000
The International Institute of Metropolitan St. Louis St. Louis, MO $225,000
United Methodist Cooperative Ministries/Suncoast, Inc.Largo, FL $237,500
Women for Afghan Women, Inc.Fresh Meadows, NY $250,000
I’ve done it over the years, but maybe it is time to revisit all of the grants available to ‘non-profit’ groups that are very much involved in political organizing particularly against this President.
Editor: First, see my quickie post last night. Also, note that I am now able (at this newly reconstructed RRW) to accept comments and I suspect more than a few of you might not like my analysis. So I will say at the outset, my hesitation to give a full blessing to the Presidential Determination in no way diminishes my support for the President.
As the Leftists know so well, in order to move the needle on any political issue there has to be someone staking out a position who is willing to say it is not enough! Heck, all of the groups included in the Refugee Industry were demanding 95,000 refugees knowing that was NEVER going to happen. They didn’t come in with anything that would appear reasonable—say 35,000-40,000—they went for the extreme.
However, I’m not saying that I wanted zero this year purely as a political ploy, but I am saying that simply reducing numbers and tinkering around the edges of an extremely flawed program designed in 1979 and 1980 by Senator Ted Kennedy and President Jimmy Carter is not going to fix how we admit refugees in the decades ahead.
Setting the level at zero would likely have forced a major national debate and Trump could have said to Congress—you don’t like it, then dump the Refugee Act of 1980 and reform the entire process by which we admit refugees.
And, yes, this is only the beginning you might argue, but only if Donald Trump is reelected in 2020!
As predicted, those organizations with a vested interest in admitting more refugees both as future Democrat voters and because they are paid to place refugees are furious.
Here is what the Refugee Council USA(an Open Borders lobbying consortium in Washington, DC) said last night.
Washington, DC – The Administration announced that it is proposing to set the Presidential Determination (PD) for annual refugee admissions for FY 2020 at 18,000. This decision is unprecedented, cruel, and contrary to American humanitarian values and strategic interests.
[….]
The US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is built on nearly four decades of public-private partnership, bringing together nonprofits, faith groups, local communities, and the Federal and State governments for this essential community-building work. Refugees strengthen our communities and our country socially, culturally, and economically.
Public-Private Partnership mumbo-jumbo!
Of course, and as usual, there is no mention that nine of the members of RCUSA*** have a financial interest in keeping numbers high because they are paid from the US Treasury to place refugees into towns and cities of their choosing.
I continue to argue that the major flaw in the US Refugee Admissions Program is the fact that Left-leaning non-profit groups are paid for their ‘charitable’ work, so there is never any incentive to adjust the flow without those groups taking to the streets with anti-Trump placards held aloft.
Kennedy and Carter created a political structure funded by taxpayers that assures a continuous flow of third world poverty to American towns and cities.
Those of us who object have no political organization with the financial resources of the nine resettlement contractors and their extensive networks, mostly through their church or synagogue infrastructure, to fight back. Not to mention the big bucks certain industries (meatpackers!) and the Chamber of Commerce are shelling out in order to keep a steady supply of cheap labor.
Although there was talk last year of dropping some of the nine federal contractors, that didn’t happen and all nine are still in place. But, even if this coming year’s low number forces a couple of the contractors to close their programs, it just allows the big ones like the US Conference of Catholic Bishopsand the International Rescue Committee to further monopolize the process.
First, get rid of the contractors!
I have said and continue to maintain that if we are to admit refugees then there is no reason that these non-profits, including the churches, can’t still do their ‘humanitarian’ work in the old fashioned way—with true private charity, and not as paid agents of the federal government.
The second important issue I’ve raised here for years involves the placement of refugees which has been largely dictated by the nine federal contractors for decades.
Yes, they coordinate with the US State Department, but it’s largely a game of pin the refugee on the map.
Only when citizens of the ‘lucky’ chosen community organize and object does anyone pay any attention to concerns about a given location (a large part of my work here for a dozen years has been to show where citizens in “pockets of resistance” have objected to the US State Department changing their community by changing the people.)
I give the President kudos for an attempt to address the problem of placement with an Executive Order signed yesterday. Read it here.But, honestly it has not been very carefully thought through and thus strikes me as a political bone thrown to critics of the program.
Why didn’t the President’s people call in some of us who are somewhat knowledgeable about how the program works on the ground to help craft a feasible way to give decision-making power to the states and local citizens who will be most affected by the arrival of large numbers of impoverished people?
This is getting too long, but let me give a few examples of why I say the order has not been thoroughly thought out.
So, governor number one (who might only have a year or so left in his/her term) says yes, we love refugees send more, but a neighboring governor says no thanks. What is going to keep the refugees in welcoming state number one?
In America, all of us are allowed to move without government approval and that includes refugees.
You can run that same scenario involving mayors. One mayor says we love refugees, but a town down the road isn’t on board with the idea. Refugees placed in town number one pack up and move to town number two anyway!
Then how about ‘welcoming’ governor number one is out of office in a year and is replaced by another governor who wants to stop the refugee flow to the state, how quickly could the feds put on the brakes to stop the flow to the now ‘unwelcoming’ state? You can see the chaos that would ensue.
I do have some ideas that I think could work in terms of revamping the whole program (assuming Americans want to continue accepting some refugees), but no one has ever contacted me to ask.
There are so many other issues involving the Presidential Determination that need to be discussed and I’ll do that in the coming days—things like: we are going to continue to take Australia’s rejected asylum seekers! Nuts!
Let me just say once again, maybe more clearly: We can still support President Trump and criticize some of his decisions.
It is my view that Trump’s greatest downfall as President began on day one when he did not immediately clean out the deep state actors throughout the White House and federal agencies and move his genuine (and knowledgeable) loyal supporters into his Administration.
The best thing you can do now is work hard for Trump’s reelection so that he has four more years to get it right and solve this problem.
***For new readers these are the nine federally-funded resettlement contractors:
Here (below) are the key points (I’ll have more to say in the morning!).
***Update*** More on the President’s Determination, here.
LOL! And, by morning we should be hearing the wailing coming from the refugee industry mouthpieces!
By the way, all nine federal refugee contractors work to politically undermine President Trump on a daily basis.Indeed they hate him just as much for 18,000 as they would if he said zero (as was being considered at one point), so he might as well have gone with zero!
Trump to cut refugees to 18,000, give localities veto over resettlement
The Trump administration on Thursday proposed cutting the number of refugees admitted next year to 18,000, and called for a major revamp of the program to align it with U.S. interests, including giving localities a say in whether they can accommodate the new arrivals.
The new plan will also reduce the role of the U.N. in picking America’s refugees, and instead give priority to religious minorities and Iraqis who have assisted the U.S. government, and to refugees the U.S has agreed to resettle on behalf of Australia.
Officials submitted the proposal to Congress on Thursday, kicking off a consultation period that will conclude with President Trump making a final determination next month.
But based on past consultations, the 18,000 number is likely to hold firm.
It would be the lowest cap since the modern refugee system was created in 1980, and marks a 12,000 drop from the fiscal year 2019 cap, and a major reduction from the 110,000 refugee target the Obama administration tried to set for 2017.
[….]
As striking as the smaller refugee cap is, officials said the changes to the system are just as important.
Chief among those is an executive order Mr. Trump will soon issue giving states and localities the chance to consent before refugees are sent to their jurisdictions.
Don’t get overly excited, this isn’t the kind of real reform I’ve been looking for! It is a start, but it should have been made two years ago. It is now too late in his term for it to produce any lasting change.
