330 of these mostly single Muslim men held in detention by Australia have been placed in American towns and cities during Donald Trump’s presidency. Trump said we would take up to 1,250 (processing is continuing) that Australia will not allow on its mainland.
Every few months I have a look at the “Processing Country Map” provided by Wrapsnet(The US State Department’s Refugee Processing Center).
The new map is posted usually on the fifth of the month for the previous months of the present fiscal year (in this case FY18).
The processing country is the location where the ‘refugee’ goes through his or her paperwork processing and security screening. We are not told what nationality they are.
One is left guessing about who exactly is coming in from that country.
The latest map is below. You can find it here yourself (click on this: Map Arrivals by Processing Country and Nationality as of August 31, 2018) and you might want to look at it because it is accompanied by a table which gives exact numbers for each processing country.
For example, it lists Malaysia (a Muslim country) as having processed 1,443 ‘refugees’ in to the US this year. Those aren’t Malaysians, but likely a large number are Rohingya Muslims from Burma who have been illegally entering Malaysia over the last few years. They should be Malaysia’s problem, not ours.
Here is the map…
When you look at this map and see the countries where we are processing refugees consider how much fraud could be being perpetrated on America.
Let’s talk about some of the questionable processing countries.
But, first, I had been wondering for months why the rejects from Australia (the “dumb” Obama deal that Trump is honoring) weren’t showing up as being processed by Australia. Ah ha! Here they are! 234 were processed by Nauru and 96 in Papua New Guinea.
A total of 330 failed asylum seekers to Australia are now living in Yourtown, USA!
Other questionable processing locations are these:
Israel (133):Why are we taking any refugees from the prosperous country of Israel? If asylum seekers from Africa arrived there they should be given a thumbs up or down from Israel, not shuffled off to Yourtown, USA as a ‘refugee.’
El Salvador (624): What the heck! I thought the Trump Administration ended the illegal pick up of migrants from El Salvador that Obama had initiated.
Costa Rica (56): Who are these people (what nationality) and again why are Costa Rica’s migrant issues our concern.
Pakistan (409): There are a few Christians coming out of Pakistan, but no where near 409. So who are these Muslims we feel compelled to resettle from a Muslim country?
When you see images of Mediterranean ‘rescue’ ships, remember that some of these migrants who get to Malta are coming to the US as your new neighbors!
Malta (128): I havedozens of posts on Malta going back ten years. When I first heard of the resettlement Bush began from Malta, I was infuriated.
Malta is a safe European country but unfortunately its location in the Mediterranean made it a primary target for migrant ‘rescue’ boats which were bringing Africans and Middle Easterners to Europe by the hundreds of thousands.
So guess what! We kindly allowed some of those African illegal aliensto be passed along by Malta to Yourtown, USA.
Europe’s illegals are not our problem, but even Trump is continuing this questionable practice.
South Africa (128): So who the heck are they?
SA is the Rainbow Nation, right? Why does the State Department data base not tell us which nationalities are not being ‘welcomed’ in SA? Why are we taking migrants who got in to SA from elsewhere in Africa and bringing them to America? We know from past reporting that many are Somalis (if you didn’t know, black South Africans are xenophobic)! Why is that our problem?
Although, as I said, there may be a way to find out which nationalities are being processed in these countries, I can’t find it.
But, I did a check to see how many South African citizens we have resettled in the last 11 months and the answer is 1 (one Christian).
Donald Trump could do more!
The choice of which countries we work through to process refugees is a choice that is made through the US State Department and the UN. As I have said repeatedly the US Refugee Admissions Program must be completely overhauled by Congress.
Meanwhile, however, the President can do a lot administratively and one thing he could do is to reassess where we pick up ‘refugees’ around the world!
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!
The National Partnership for New Americans claims that the Trump Administration is purposefully slowing the citizenship process for hundreds of thousands of migrants who are waiting to become US voters.
In the last year, over 925,000 people applied for citizenship in the United States. For many, this was years after coming to this country in search of a better life, becoming an integral part of communities across the nation, learning English, working hard, and contributing to their families and the economy. The right to naturalize is a right as old as the nation itself and was envisioned by its founders, created by the Constitution, and codified by federal law. It has also long contributed to the diversity, richness, and strength of the nation.
Unfortunately, since the Trump administration took control of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the federal agency that processes citizenship applications, the backlog of pending naturalization applications has skyrocketed to 729,400, with processing rates reaching as high as 20 months.The newest data from USCIS represents a 87.59% increase above the backlog of 388,832 applications, on December 31, 2015, during the administration of President Obama.
In response to the increasing backlog, NPNA and our partners in the Naturalize NOW Campaign are launching a national campaign, in conjunction with the release of this report update, to reduce the backlog and the waiting time for USCIS to process applications to six months, consistent with past practice, and to encourage naturalization for the millions of eligible LPRs.
You know that getting more people out to vote for the fall election and for the Presidential election in 2020 is critical to the Left’s agenda.
The Trump Administration says there is nothing nefarious about the backlog, it is simply a case of so many MORE immigrants seeking citizenship. See a recent news story here.
The NPNA will hold its annual conference in Arlington, Virginia this year.
They are called Special Immigrant Visa holders (SIVs for short) and they supposedly helped the US in some way (or they could have helped an NGO!), sometimes as interpreters. They and their immediate family members are welcomed to the US and treated with the same package of goodies refugees receive.
Also, we are told that the resettlement contractors are paid (by you) to place them as well, and those funds we’ve heard are helping to keep the contractors from completely going belly-up!
(See my post yesterdayabout the number of regular refugees admitted this fiscal year, the number is relatively low, but the SIV number is not! 2,196 Muslims were admitted as regular refugees, but add to that 9,166 Afghan Muslims in the last 11 months!)
Yesterday US General Austin Miller took over NATO command in Afghanistan. We have been there for 17 years. Here is what I want to know? If we continue to bring to America the tens of thousands of Afghans who willingly helped us, won’t only the worst of the worst be left in the country? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/09/02/us-general-assumes-nato-command-in-afghanistan.html
