Trump Watch! Is rumored refugee cap reduction to 50,000 that significant?

One more post on numbers and the rumored executive order on refugees, and then I am moving on to a lot of other refugee news that has gone unreported for days as we watch and wait for President Trump’s delayed order on the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program.

george-w-bush-net-worth
The Bush Administration was favorable toward refugees, and yet he had 4 years where the numbers admitted were under 50,000. Bush’s average was around 58,750.  So, if Trump comes in at 50,000, it isn’t a shockingly unprecedented reduction.

The rumor (and who leaked the draft executive order anyway?) is that Donald Trump will cap the refugee admissions for FY2017 at 50,000.  Obama had proposed 110,000 (and the refugee resettlement contractors have been busy finding new sites for their placement).
As of today we are at 32,094 (see previous post).
(Trump will be setting the numbers for FY2018 in September of this year.)
But this is what you need to know:  50,000 doesn’t represent a shocking reduction when you look at the history of resettlement since 2001. (These numbers, below, came from this chart, Wrapsnet, and from ORR annual reports to Congress).
Here are the numbers we admitted through the Bush and Obama Administrations (Bush had 4 years under 50,000!). Remember the resettlement agencies are paid by the head, so it is to their financial benefit to see high numbers:

2001: 87,259 (this year’s number would have been proposed by Clinton in the fall of 2000)

2002: 45,896

2003: 39,554

2004: 79,158

2005: 69,006

2006: 41,223

2007: 48,282

2008: 60,191

2009: 74,654

2010: 73,311

2011: 56,424

2012: 58,238

2013: 69,926

2014: 69,987

2015: 69,993

2016: 84,994

Again, 50,000 might look like a great reduction when compared to Obama’s 110,000 proposed number, but it isn’t that significant a reduction.  I bet the media will report this as Trump cutting the refugee numbers in half!
See our Trump Watch! category for all the news about the delayed executive order.

US exceeds original goal—admits over 60,000 “Bhutanese refugees” since 2007

Nevermind that the “refugees” are not Bhutanese, but in fact are Nepalis.  They are originally from Nepal, had settled in Bhutan (probably illegally) and then Bhutan gave them the boot (wanting to keep Bhutan for true Bhutanese).  Nepal, not an evil terrorist country, didn’t want their kinsmen back, so they lived in camps and the UN and the US State Department under George Bush said, what the heck we’ll take 60,000.

Remember Bush is an Open Borders guy and I suspect, although soft-hearted on immigrants generally, was largely driven by financial backers looking for cheap labor.  Think about it, with captive LEGAL refugee laborers, big businesses keep wages low and their employees are additionally supported through taxpayer-funded “social services” to bring their living standards up (since their wages won’t do it alone).  What a racket!  (But, I’m digressing).

We have followed this story from its earliest days when the “refugees” proclaimed that they didn’t want to be resettled and dispersed around the world (Let us live together here with our brothers and sisters),  but wanted to work things out with Bhutan and Nepal.  Why we ever got into this squabble between neighbors is beyond me, but it was Bush’s then Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration who ultimately gave the green light, here.   And, just as I said in my previous post about TPS, these really are economic migrants, they aren’t people being persecuted in their home country.

Now, the UN (which loves moving people around the world) is celebrating that they have dispersed 75,000 economic migrants to mostly the US.   The story I’m posting below is confusing but it appears that we have now resettled 63,400.     As recently as September the number was 60,000, here.   I’ll bet you a buck this isn’t the final number!

December 13 2012,  Kathmandu Nepal:  Claiming to have resettled around 75,000 Bhutanese refugees from Nepal, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) confirmed the number in a joint statement. Under one of the largest and successful resettlement programs, more than 63,400 refugees were resettled in United States, 3,837 in Australia, 5,296 in Canada, 724 in Denmark, 710 in New Zealand, 326 in Netherlands, 546 Norway, and 257 in United Kingdom where Yagandra Kami a six year old boy became the 75,000 refugee to be part of major resettlement program. The Program was launched in November 2007.

Stephane Jaquemet, UNHCR Representative in Nepal said, ““This is a tremendous achievement, where we have successfully placed 75,000th Bhutanese refugee from Nepal to the United States [75,000th to US?—-ed] on Wednesday for the third country settlement. It has only been possible due to the incredible generosity of the resettlement countries, the resilience of the refugees, the great support of the Government of Nepal, and the exemplary partnership with IOM.”

[…..]

The Bhutanese ethnic cleansing took place in early 1990s, where hundreds of thousand Nepali origin Bhutanese were forced for exile. [It would be like us sending Mexicans back to Mexico, and Mexico rejecting them—ed] They were forced to be limited in overcrowded refugee camps in eastern Nepal with no progress toward a resolution of their plight. Many rounds of bilateral talks between the governments of Nepal and Bhutan could not resolve the issue.  [Why didn’t we just tell Nepal to repatriate its own people!–ed]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as binding international treaties signed by Bhutan, ensures the right of the refugees to return to their country. During this long period of exile, however, Bhutan has not allowed a single refugee back. In midst of that the US and other supporting agencies started the resettlement program which has led in ensuring at least a quality of life for the refugee.

Quality of life?   Just now I was looking back at reports of all the problems the mostly Buddhist Bhutanese have experienced in America. Yes, my critics will tell me many others are doing just fine.   One post is about a Baltimore murder of a Bhutanese refugee, here.  And in that post I said this:

I just typed ‘Bhutanese murdered’ into the search function here at RRW and up came this archive of all the problems the Bhutanese are experiencing—others murdered, one killed by an abortion doctor, inner city beatings, suicides, and the list goes on.