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.

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.

7 thoughts on “Trump Watch! Is rumored refugee cap reduction to 50,000 that significant?

  1. 50,000 is a lot! I expected him to stop refugees altogether and to send those here back as promised. “They’re all going back!” Very upset and angry about this! We must let him know!


    1. You are right! He didn’t go far enough. It is really important now to pound your member of Congress and US Senators to reform the law. Tell the White House what you think!!!


  2. I would say it was significant, but only IF he incorporates “extreme vetting” for all and folows through with his other refugee/immigration policy positions. Already hearing fearful rumblings from local resettlement agency. Talk of lay-offs within a matter of months.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Why hasn’t Trump stopped the dirtbag inflow? Everybody knows that soetoro infested mooslims to US cities for dem votes and to TRANSFORM America! In a matter of days, Trump has let thousands more slip in and even allowing 50K for the year!! This particular issue is why Trump got elected and he is now failing, there is NO excuse! Seems like a deal has been made with rino’s and Trump fell for it.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. WHAT THE ‘ROGUE’ GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE DOING to frustrate the newly elected president…

    JAN 25, 2017 @ 10:35 PM 120,143 VIEWS The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets

    What The ‘Rogue’ EPA, NPS and NASA Twitter Accounts Teach Us About The Future Of Social

    Kalev Leetaru , CONTRIBUTOR

    One of the stories that generated a fair bit of coverage today was the rise of “rogue” Twitter accounts popping up for agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Park Service (NPS) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Accounts like @RogueNASA, @AltNatParkSer, @ActualEPAFacts and @Alt_NASA claim to be run by active or former employees of the agencies and have all attracted followers rapidly, with @RogueNASA earning 87,000 followers as of the time of this writing and @AltNatParkSer having 690,000 followers. What can we learn about the future of government communication from this act of civil disobedience?

    At first glance, one of the most remarkable aspects of the accounts is that, as their avatars, they used (updated below) the official logos of the agencies they are attempting to speak on behalf of, yet many federal agency logos are strictly controlled. For example, the EPA logo policy states that for any organization which wishes to “reproduce the EPA logo or seal for purposes acceptable to the Agency, permission must be granted by OPA, which will provide a copy of the logo or seal.” NASA guidelines are even more strict, stating “The NASA insignia logo (the blue “meatball” insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red “worm” logo) and the NASA seal may not be used for any purpose without explicit permission. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products, publications or web pages that are not NASA-sponsored.” NPS takes its restrictions even further, referencing possible criminal prosecution: “The arrowhead symbol is the official insignia and registered mark of the NPS. As such, it is protected by trademark laws and by 18 U.S.C. § 701, which provides for criminal penalties against non-governmental use of Government marks and other insignia. The arrowhead symbol may not be used without prior written permission from the Director of the NPS.”

    While U.S. copyright and trademark law do provide for the concept of parody, the accounts in question have positioned themselves less as satiric and humorous parodies of the official accounts they mimic, but rather as resistance accounts that purport to offer the true story of those organizations. In particular, the accounts have positioned themselves in their tweets as alternative authoritative resources for those interested in their respective agencies’ research, replacing the official accounts. In fact, the @AltNatParkSer account has almost twice as many followers as the official @NatlParkService account.


Comments are closed.