Refugee Resettlement Watch

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 5,912 other followers

  • Reaching me by mail

    You can reach me by e-mail here:

    (But my inbox is so overloaded most of the time, it is hard to keep up.)

    Or, since some of you have asked, I have a post office box and you can reach me there by snail mail!

    Ann Corcoran
    P.O. Box 55
    Fairplay, MD 21733

  • Social

  • Refugee Info Resource

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 8,049,459 hits

Study: Middle Eastern refugees cost US $257,481 for family of four in first five years!

Posted by Ann Corcoran on November 5, 2015

As we have always suspected but have had little proof until now, it is more cost-effective to care for refugees in regions close to their homes rather than to bring them to the US.

Steven Camarata, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies released a new analysis today.

As Americans continue to debate what to do about the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, this analysis attempts to estimate the costs of resettling refugees from that region in the United States. Although we do not consider all costs, our best estimate is that in their first five years in the United States each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370 — 12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries.

The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. Costs also include processing refugees, assistance given to new refugees, and aid to refugee-receiving communities. Given the high costs of resettling refugees in the United States, providing for them in neighboring countries in the Middle East may be a more cost-effective way to help them.


Continue reading here.

I suspect that these new numbers for the US are very conservative since we recently heard it will cost the UK, roughly $36,000 per refugee per year to bring Syrians into the UK.

8 Responses to “Study: Middle Eastern refugees cost US $257,481 for family of four in first five years!”

  1. Cannot get SSI unless you worked.What is General Assistance?.


    • Ann Corcoran said

      Refugees are eligible for SSI even if they never worked here. Will get the answer about General Assistance.


  2. Why is our government allowing this to happen to us. Yes us, we are America, everything that happens in America or to America happens to us, each and every one of us, individually. So, why is our government allowing this to happen to us? What happens to us does not happen to the government people, they are like immigrants themselves and they cost us, like the immigrants cost us, the politicians cost us dearly. The politicians cost us dearly because they live like royalty and charge us accordingly.


  3. bharford said

    All of this vibrancy is worth it though. Diversity is so under rated. Kebabs and rape gangs go together like peas and carrots


  4. The cost, in both fiscal and human terms, is totally cost-ineffective, in the attempt to bring refugees across the world to replant them in peace, whether in Europe or in the Western Hemisphere. I wrote on this issue and the best solution to the tragedy months ago. The cultural violence encountered by refugees outside of their ambience is total in its proportions.

    The refugees must be housed and accommodated as near to their homelands as possible. Northern Africa, Turkey, the Balkans, the Saudi satrapies, as well as southern Greece and southern Italy are the best nearby locations for temporary living. The UN and the EU must “take that bull by the horns” and assist the refugees as conveniently as possible and as quickly as possible. Their travels and travails across Europe and the “High Seas” are an unacceptable way to help them.

    Get the refugees into shelters immediately. Get teachers of their languages installed in temporary schools as quickly as possible. Get housing, clothing, food and medical care THERE, where they are in crucial need of help. Their lives have already tasted the turmoil of loss…loss of homes, families, relatives, neighborhoods, culture–and now must they struggle through Europe and elsewhere just to find temporary peace through the violence of culture shock?

    There is a much better way for the world’s onlookers to resolve the issues involved in “Refugee Resettlement.”


    • Skip Patel said

      A totally unacceptable solution that would be rejected outright by “migrants” and their lobbyists.

      North America is the objective of the invasion forces and they are determined to achieve their goal even if they must wait a few years and enter this continent on Scandinavian passports.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Our country and I are empathetic to the cause of the refugees. That is not in question. The cost per family over five years in the U.S. is enough money to furnish housing, clothing and food to a family in a country near Syria and the other devastated regions of the ME. A family would not be placed further in harm’s way if relief were nearby, and that is my urgent suggestion and solution.

        What a family may want over a period of years is an issue that the countries offering help have no time to deal with at this time. They are inundated with desperate humans fleeing death and destruction, yet the burdens placed on them must also be taken into consideration, for they also involve burdens placed on the citizens of those countries where refugees imagine they can find relief. Their relief is a two-edged sword that is already turning one group against another.

        The best solution is one that offers immediate respite in regions near the homelands of the refugees. The cost-effectiveness is far more beneficial in both human and economic terms, and much more goodwill can materialize for refugees with these temporary solutions in mind. No solution will please all, but the crucial nature of the issue argues for immediate assistance–without disrupting the lives of more people, even though Europe has, to now, offered relief. The further costs involved in shipping families across the ocean simply argues further for a very different, if temporary, solution to the plight of refugees.

        One more note…the U.S. should not engage ground troops into Syria and Iraq without: a) permission of the governments under siege, and b) not before the governments of the ME first commit troops to “degrade and destroy” the evil policies of Daesh.


  5. […] WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: