Refugee Resettlement Watch

State Department and refugee lobby group work on private sponsorship scheme to get more refugees into the US

Posted by Ann Corcoran on October 4, 2016

Update October 19th: More on this scheme. Remember the purpose is to get more refugees in to the country because this private scheme would be in ADDITION to the present system.

So, as it is described by one commenter: Instead of buying a $10,000 car in the coming year, what the heck adopt a Syrian refugee instead.

I would be a proponent of private sponsorship if it accompanied the complete abolition of the present system that involves middlemen federal contractors (the VOLAGs) being paid billions of tax dollars, and required the sponsor to pay for all costs associated with the refugees for a year or two. Congress would, of course, have the final say on numbers, security screening and nationalities permitted entry to the US in my hypothetical re-write of refugee law.


Matthew LaCorte (one of the brains behind the plan) thinks $10,000 will get him a refugee—what for a month or two! Then what? The refugee he sponsored is on us!

But, this plan, which they are apparently hatching within the State Department and in cooperation with the Refugee Council USA (the resettlement industry’s lobbying arm), is a plan to bring in additional refugees over and above what Congress is willing to pay for.

(For those of you who think we have no impact, this indicates to me that the industry knows there are limits to how much of your money the Congress is willing to shell out to bring hundreds of thousands of impoverished refugees to your towns.)

This really is a pretty audacious concept since they apparently think they can do this ‘in house’ and not involve rewriting refugee law.  (Congress writes the laws, or have they forgotten?)

Here is the jaw-dropping (Bloomberg, of course!) story at the Chicago Tribune (hat tip: Julia):

Americans might be able to bring a refugee to the U.S. on their own dime if talks between the Obama administration and the nation’s leading refugee advocacy group come to fruition.

The State Department is considering a pilot program that would let citizens sponsor a refugee from their country of choice by paying for airfare, housing, clothing, food and other resettlement costs. Conversations began in July and are expected to continue in the coming year, said Naomi Steinberg, director of the Refugee Council USA.

The program, modeled after a similar one in Canada, is designed to crack open new sources of funding as growing anti-refugee sentiment in Congress threatens to cut resettlement programs.

“It puts Americans in the driver’s seat,” said Matthew La Corte, policy analyst at the Niskanen Center***, a Washington-based libertarian think tank that was an early supporter of the program. “It allows them to say ‘I have a spare bedroom. I was thinking of buying a new car but I’ll instead take that $10,000 and put it toward bringing a Syrian refugee over.”‘


Such a program would mark one of the biggest structural changes to U.S. refugee policy in three decades, and would allow Barack Obama or future presidents to skirt opposition by shifting financial responsibility to everyday Americans.

[I’m all for shifting all of the costs to those who are promoting refugee resettlement—ed]


For fiscal 2016, Congress appropriated $3.1 billion for refugee and migration assistance programs, the same level as two years earlier, according to figures from the agency.

Private sponsorship “is a good option in terms of increasing numbers without increasing budget outlays,” said Kevin Appleby, senior director of international migration policy at the Center for Migration Studies in New York. [Appleby was formerly the lobbyist in DC for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, we have a lot on him here at RRW—ed]


State Department’s Mark Storella: we will be working on it this coming year (when Hillary gets to the White House). Photo:

Refugee Council USA and the state department began talks about private sponsorship this summer, said Steinberg, director at the Washington-based agency, which is an umbrella group for 22 organizations.

The State Department plans to work on the issue “in the year to come,” according to a statement from Mark Storella, a deputy assistant secretary. [Looks like they are pretty confident Hillary will be in the White House.—ed]


Before any program is launched, critical points must be addressed, said Steinberg. The group wants to ensure that sponsorship does not replace existing government programs.

“The only private resettlement program that we could support would be one that increases the number of refugees who arrive in the U.S., while at the same time maintaining and even strengthening the U.S. government commitments,” Steinberg said.

Continue reading here.

*** What is in it for the libertarians at the Niskanen Center—cheap refugee labor for big business? Would someone tell me!

13 Responses to “State Department and refugee lobby group work on private sponsorship scheme to get more refugees into the US”

  1. MN said

    Reblogged this on Minnesotans For Freedom.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dotsword said

      No doubt this was cooked up by George Clooney while he was hanging out w/Pres at the UN meetings.

      Clooney AND ***his IVORY TOWER SYNDROME FRIENDS*** {including equally vocal Ben Affleck } NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN via AMERICANS TAKING TO SOCIAL MEDIA ENFORCE!!!!

      These *** Ivory Tower Elites*** think nothing of tossing in $50,000-$100,000 or more, for ‘the cause’
      — BUT THEY WILL ALSO . . . . . .


      just like past & present, WE are the citizens who will continue to be FORCED to deal with the NEVER-ENDING AFTERMATH of problems — muti-generational.

      Nothing will change

      {–except for the tax breaks for the Elite}


  2. The sponsor would have to provide health insurance also without doubt and yet make sure that he; the sponsor had enough money to cover his own health insurance also. I bet this alone would take up most of the $10,000 over the period of only a couple of months.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Reblogged this on .

    Liked by 1 person

  4. krew09 said

    Steinberg(Jew) Storella(Jew)….ever notice how they are always in the mix?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Reblogged this on jowitteroosblog.


  6. dotsword said

    sponsors would need to be responsible for far more than just financial support [& would need at least 3-5years guaranteed]

    — they need to also be legally responsible for the damage they cause –[refugees are judgment proof]; also, behavioral complaints that SHOULD effect whether they are allowed to get citizenship — or get kicked out

    Ex: I searched numerous times at Immigration site –there is literally no way to lodge formal complaints; key in various forms of ‘complaint’ into Immgr.’s search engine, and literally thousands of pgs come back ONLY FOR various ways the Immigrants can lodge a complaint [& there are countless issues they are allowed to complain about

    –but absolutely no avenue whatsoever, for an America citizen to lodge complaints about a refugee/immigrant especially with regard to behavior.


  7. lehi48 said

    These loony tunes have no idea how they sound to nor what middle Americans think and just how fare their patience will go. After the migrants settle-in if Europe is an example or model, they cannot reasonable be vetted, ISSIS spelled out just what there general plan was before it happened. They would flood Europe and America with refugees and amongst the refugees there will be embedded ISSIS terrorists. They will use all means at their disposal to kill the non-believer and spread terror just as Mohammed did at Medina. I believe them and so do the Security Services in Europe and here. Then why would Obama, put American lives at unreasonable risk to make this grave error. I’ll let y’all fill in the blanks. By the way, he swore an to protect the Constitution by extension us the governed, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. domstudent11 said

    I don’t think private individuals or organizations are going to want to take full responsibility for un-vetted people who might commit crimes or be terrorists and be sued if things go awry. Think about that refugee family in Evanston who caused $4500 worth of damage to the apartment. That bill would no doubt go to the church or individual who sponsored that family. Too risky.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Reblogged this on Kerberos616.


  10. Perfect! Let them be responsible like sponsors of legal immigrants, for a full five years and commitments to not let the immigrant draw entitlements!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: