I mostly wanted to know what the numbers are looking like because I’m sure the Obama Administration is pouring them in as fast as they can before January 20th, the day Donald Trump moves in to the White House.
So checking Wrapsnet.org this morning, and to make it easy on myself (with the math) I checked the data from October 1, 2016 to December 10, 2016 (exactly ten weeks) and this is what I found. We admitted 21,117 refugees from all over the world in those ten weeks. That is a rate of approximately 2,112 per week so far this fiscal year*** which is way beyond anything we have seen in years. See the monthly rates for the last ten years here.
So here is a screenshot (sorry couldn’t get it all on the screen) of where the 21,117 have been placed in the last ten weeks:
And here is the list of the top ten states so far:
For all sorts of data and reports, visit two important categories here at RRW. Visit ‘Refugee statistics’ and ‘Where to find information.’ Both are categories where I post information like this.
I’ll try to do one of these reports for some of the primary ethnic groups over the coming days.
***I always try to use fiscal year which runs, in this case, from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017, because the Refugee Admissions Program operates on a fiscal year basis. So, if you see numbers being reported elsewhere, take note of whether the reporter is using the fiscal year or calendar year.
Tag: Texas
Refugee agencies nervous about what's ahead for program under Trump Administration
Editor: Apologies for not posting all of the comments you sent yesterday, most didn’t appear until I got up this morning. What is up with wordpress?
I’ve been keeping an eye out for stories about how refugee resettlement contractors and the Obama agencies responsible for resettlement are reacting to the coming Trump Administration. They are no doubt fearful that Trump will act on his campaign promises—-some are more optimistic than others that it was all talk on the campaign trail.
(For the record we expect Trump to stop the program (at a minimum) from terror producing regions*** of the world within days of his inauguration on January 20th. And, we expect all Obama political appointees responsible for the refugee program to be gone before that date!)
Here is news from VICE magazine (featuring Texas) about some of the reaction (emphasis is mine):
Resettlement agencies in Texas—and other states with governors who have fought to block refugees—are working harder than ever to soothe their clients in the wake of the election of Donald Trump, who pledged during his campaign to severely restrict refugees from settling in the US. Now, as resettlement agencies try to keep a calm face, they also brace for a possible halt on the country’s refugee program, which advocates warn could cause a humanitarian disaster.
The president-elect has kept quiet about his resettlement plans since his election, and his press office did not return requests for comment. But during his campaign, Trump vowed to suspend the acceptance of all Syrians and to stop sending refugees to any community that opposed them. [More on this below—ed]
“A Trump administration will not admit any refugees without the support of the local community where they are being placed,” Trump said just three days before the election in a Minnesota campaign speech. He added that the state had “suffered enough” since Somali refugees began arriving. Later, after a Somali refugee attacked students at Ohio State, Trump tweeted that the 18-year-old “should not have been in our country.”
If a Trump administration does decide to block refugee resettlement in certain communities, the move would be unprecedented. Currently, the Office of Refugee Resettlement places refugees throughout the country with the help of national NGOs under the federal refugee resettlement program. States cannot turn away refugees, even if their communities don’t want them.
[….]
Abbott’s withdrawal, largely seen as a political move, can’t actually prevent new refugees from coming to Texas. But some warn that the Trump administration could cut services and funds, effectively gutting these programs. [This is the key in my opinion because the resettlement contractors have almost no private resources—ed]
“If the services we provide now were to stop, it would be a humanitarian disaster,” Rippenkroeger told me. “There would be people homeless, without medical coverage and food. It would be a very direct human catastrophe so we can’t afford for the program not to be fully functional.”
Look at this! This program costs the federal taxpayer $100 million alone just for Texas for one year!
Texas is slated to receive about $100 million in federal funds for refugee resettlement in 2017…
[….]
“There’s no amount of fundraising we could do to replace federal support.” [That is right because people give their private charitable gifts to efforts they approve of!—ed]
Then this is something I expected was going on big time and not just in Texas—emptying the coffers at ORR before January 20th (not necessarily for refugees but to keep the contractor offices open).
Amid the uncertainty, Rippenkroeger said the Office of Refugee Resettlement was working with a “nose to the grindstone approach” in setting up a system to distribute federal funds through the Texas NGOs.
[….]
Refugee advocates in other parts of the country where anti-refugee sentiment is common displayed similar reserve when I asked them about Trump’s resettlement plans. Cole Varga, executive director of Exodus Refugee Immigration Inc.—the organization that sued Mike Pence, the governor of Indiana and vice president-elect, for trying to block Syrian refugees from the state—told me he was hopeful.
“Currently, we have not received any word from our national partners or the State Department on how the incoming Trump administration will run the federal government’s refugee resettlement program,” Varga told me in an email, declining to comment on the lawsuit.
Do not get excited by Trump’s statement about not sending refugees to communities that don’t want them. This is not realistic and a long-time Church World Service head honcho gives us one reason why:
Even if Trump allows certain communities to pull out of resettlement, he can’t stop refugees from moving states after arriving in the US—which means the most significant difference may be the money states receive, noted Erol Kekic, executive director of the national resettlement agency Church World Service.
“Immigration is a federal matter, and if the nation continues to admit refugees, they’re free to go wherever they want the moment they arrive,” Kekic told me. “They may not receive services, but they’re free to move—so even if Governor Abbott says he wants none in Texas, how will he know a refugee won’t move to Texas?”
Continue reading here.
The RAP is built on a house of cards primarily based on federal funding per head of refugee admitted to the US. The ultimate answer is to stop the program (stop the numbers coming in and the funding for it!) altogether until the Refugee Act of 1980 can be reformed or trashed entirely.
I have to laugh when Kekic (above) says that “immigration is a federal matter,” but I would bet a buck he is all for those sanctuary cities thumbing their noses at the incoming Trump team saying they (the city) will decide whether to enforce federal immigration law or not.
***On terror producing regions of the world. I am talking specifically about Syrians, Somalis, Burmese Rohingya Muslims, Afghans, and most Iraqis wherever in the world we are picking them up. For example, Trump’s people can’t say “we won’t take any refugees from Somalia.” Most Somalis are not in Somalia any longer, but scattered around the world (some in very safe countries) and we are taking them to America anyway! Again, at this point in time, Donald Trump as President must stop or slow the flow across the board and not get into the weeds on the issue of whether a community wants refugees or not!
When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!
When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!
When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!
When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!
When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!
When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!
When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!
When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!
What am I doing you ask? An expert on communication once told me that people have to hear the same message seven times before they get it. I want readers to get this point!
Once a governor withdraws his/her state from the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program (RAP), a Constitutionally unsupportable program created out of whole cloth known as the Wilson-Fish program gives the director of the ORR the (supposed) authority to designate a NON-GOVERNMENTAL organization to run the program in the state.
Please visit the Office of Refugee Resettlement website, here, to learn more about it (see a list of all states that are W-F now).
Knowledge is power:
Then, see Michael Patrick Leahy’s (Breitbart) clear description of the history of the law/regulation known as the Wilson-Fish Alternative program by clicking here. (That article, written almost a year ago, is available by googling. Are lawyers for governors withdrawing from the program so incompetent that they can’t find that information?)
As governors withdraw there may be a brief period of disruption to the flow of refugees to the state (the new withdrawals are New Jersey, Kansas, Texas and now Maine), but the resettlement proceeds and services are supplied when a federally-funded non-profit resettlement contractor takes over.
Think about it! The federal government and an unelected, unaccountable to any voters, non-profit group will be deciding how to spend local and state taxpayer dollars in this case, Maine!
I continue to be stunned by how little lawyers for these governors know about the RAP and are apparently in the dark about what they are doing…..
Unless of course they do know and by withdrawing they are getting the monkey (you) off their backs, fooling those of you who want it stopped, and thus allowing the program to proceed claiming they can do nothing.
However, they can do something…..
If a governor withdraws, he must follow-up with a state’s rights lawsuit!
The state of Tennessee is proceeding to challenge the Constitutionality of the Wilson-Fish program, see here. The real test for the governors who withdraw is if they will join the lawsuit!
Under present administration of the program, Maine resettlement will continue as the federal government will (illegally we believe) assign a replacement agency to administer it!
Now, here is the AP story about what the Governor of Maine has just done and what the feds will do in response (I bet Catholic Charities is chuckling behind closed doors!). Will Governor LePage sue?
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) – Refugees will continue entering Maine despite Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s announcement that the state will no longer participate in a federally funded resettlement program.
So far this year, about 607 refugees were resettled in Maine, and more will arrive next year. Over the past decade, the state has worked with Catholic Charities of Maine to settle more than 3,400 refugees.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said its Office of Refugee Resettlement is working to appoint an interim agency that will administer earmarked federal funds, though a timeline is still uncertain.
That agency will likely be Catholic Charities. The federal government will later accept competitive bids for an agency that will take federal funds directly for refugee resettlement. [This whole process is built on no legal authority!—ed]
[….]
LePage wrote a Nov. 4 letter to Democratic President Barack Obama saying he no longer wants Maine associated with the federal refugee resettlement program, and he has also opposed the settlement of Syrian refugees in Maine “until adequate vetting procedures can be established.”
[….]
The governor said Maine communities are being burdened by this “unchecked influx of refugees” and “especially prevalent” welfare fraud within the refugee community. He did not provide data for such assertions.
[….]
Maine joins three other states – New Jersey, Kansas and Texas – that have recently opted out the federally funded refugee assistance program.
If you live in one of the so-called Wilson-Fish states you should be urging your governors to join the Tennessee case!
Endnote: I saw Kansas Governor Brownback’s name on a list of people Trump is interviewing. I sure hope it isn’t for any position relating to immigration/refugees. See here in 2014 we reported that he signed on to a letter with Grover Norquist and other RINOs, including Jeb Bush, which urged the Republican Party to embrace more refugee resettlement. Human Rights First loved it!
Article explains why Texas withdrawal from Refugee Program may benefit resettlement in state (in long run)
For everyone getting excited about governors withdrawing from the Refugee Admissions Program, please take a breath.
The feds will simply pick a non-profit refugee contractor to run the program unless the governor takes the second step and that is, after being declared a Wilson-Fish state, he or she joins the Tennessee Tenth Amendment case prepared by the Thomas More Law Center.
Not too long about Kansas and New Jersey withdrew, but I haven’t heard a peep out of Governors Brownback (KS) or Christie (NJ) that they would now seek to defend their state’s rights.
Here is a portion of the story about Texas from Vice magazine (emphasis is mine):
…Texas has resorted to withdrawal from the federal resettlement program—but the same number of refugees will continue to be resettled in Texas, according to Victoria Palmer, public affairs specialist for the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. The difference is in the distribution of funds and services for those individuals and families. Currently, the State of Texas receives the funds to distribute to nonprofits, which distribute money to the refugees and offer support services. Now, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will instead choose one or a few nonprofits to receive and distribute those funds.
“While we of course regret Texas’s decision, ORR is working to appoint designees to administer services to refugees in Texas,” Palmer told me. “ORR is working to prevent a disruption in the delivery of services and benefits to refugees and entrants in Texas.”
And the US Department of State, which screens refugees and works with ORR to distribute them, said Texas would continue to receive all groups of refugees, including Syrians.
“Applicants to the US Refugee Admissions Program are currently subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States,” a State Department official told me in an emailed statement. “Syrian refugees are screened to an even higher level.”
Since Texas’s withdrawal can’t block resettlement, immigration experts told me the move was purely for show.
[….]
Lin and Palmer both told me that Texas would eventually operate resettlement through a model that 12 states already use, called the Wilson-Fish Program. Under that program, the federal government picks one or a few organizations to serve as long-term partners, distributing funds and services to nonprofits and to refugees throughout the state.
Palmer said ORR would soon make a request for “competitive bids” to serve as the distributors.
“The organizations chosen to be the main agency for the state will be more burdened, but these agencies have been doing this for a very long time,” Lin said.
Texas will be the largest state to use the alternative program—which Aaron Rippenkroeger, the CEO and president of Refugee Services Texas, said was cause for concern.
[….]
But Rubin of the IRC assured me that Texas’s withdrawal may even open the door to a better resettlement process.
More here.
Texas grassroots citizens concerned about refugee resettlement in the state must pressure the governor to take step #2 and sue! But, if you do this, you MUST make sure your Washington reps know what you are doing and how you feel—see calling on Texas (your members of Congress are in key positions to do something!). As I said yesterday, I think you would be stunned to find out how isolated your Washington reps are in their little Capitol Hill bubble.
Click here to learn more about Wilson-Fish states.
350 refugees a day entering US (less than three weeks in to the fiscal year); Texas is numero uno!
And at that rate we will have admitted 32,900 by Inauguration Day in January. In that 350 a day stream are 47 Syrians (for a total of 852 so far).
Of the total (6,328) admitted in the last 18 days, 2,874 (45%) are some form of Muslim.
Of the 852 Syrians admitted, 837 (98%) are Muslims (mostly Sunni Muslims).
Texas tops the list by far!
This once more demonstrates that the governor, although apparently determined, has little power to slow the flow. In fact, I think the feds are shoving it down the throats of ‘unwelcoming’ governors, see Indiana below. Pence’s IN is not usually so high on the resettlement list.
Who has the power to slow the flow? Many members of the Texas Congressional delegation have the power if they wished to use it!
(Turning a red state blue with migrant colonists! How did it happen that Texas’s political leaders never saw this coming?)
Map from the Refugee Processing Center shows where the 6,328 refugees have been distributed in first 18 days of Fiscal year 2017. (Hawaii is 3).