Refugee Resettlement Watch

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

    Join 5,919 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

    • 8,120,737 hits

45,732 refugees admitted this fiscal year so far, 45% are Muslim

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 29, 2017

I’ve been asked frequently what the numbers look like for which religions are practiced by refugees entering the US right now.

Unless Donald Trump tells us that the New York Times story was fake news last week, see here, and that we are not shooting for 70,000 refugees this year, we will assume it is true (and report the numbers as they come in).  Just a reminder that any number in excess of 70,000 will put Trump ahead of most Bush years and ahead of several of Obama’s years.

It doesn’t matter what religion the alleged Burmese biter practices, the questions you should ask are, how did he get through “extreme vetting” and can we afford ‘refugees’ with this degree of apparent mental illness?

Before I give you the list, I want to emphasize that religion should not be the main criteria for your assessment of whether the refugee is good or bad for America.

First, these people are all supposed to have been PERSECUTED?   Do we take some who are really simply economic migrants, those who need work? If so, that is not the purpose of the Refugee Act of 1980.

Can we afford large numbers with mental illness, or illnesses such as TB?

Can we afford those who have no hope of getting off welfare for a generation?

Can we afford those who might already have criminal tendencies that do not become evident in those personal interviews (when no data is available from failed nation states)?

Are we to take into consideration the need by big companies and the Chamber of Commerce for a steady supply of cheap immigrant labor (supported by your tax dollars)?

Are we taking some supposed ‘refugees’ for other purposes of the US State Department, to ‘help-out’ some country that is having a security or economic problem? Or, as we have done in some cases (Uzbeks? Meskhetians?), where we want something from that country?

Again, religion should not be the primary reason we admit or deny anyone, unless they can prove they are being persecuted for it!

Here is a list of some of the religions recorded at Wrapsnet and the refugees who practice those religions (data for this fiscal year from October 1, 2016 to today).  Note: This program operates on a fiscal year basis!

Again, I do not include below all of the religions listed. These are the larger (or more interesting to me) numbers and these are not my categories, they are how they are categorized at Wrapsnet.  45% of those entering the US in this fiscal year practice some form of Islam.   Since Trump was inaugurated on January 20th, the percentage of Muslims entering the US has dropped to 39%.

Numbers for the fiscal year 2017 (so far):

Baptists (1,591)

Buddhists (1,380)

Catholics (2,713)

Christians (6,890)

Evangelical Christians (364)

Hindu (979)

Jehovah Witness (388)

Jewish (149)

Moslem Suni (9,663)

Moslem Shiite (2,509)

Moslem (8,180) These must not have designated a sect

No religion (369)

Orthodox (983)

Pentecostalist (3,901)

Protestant (1,918)

Yezidi (416)

Total refugees this fiscal year:  45,732

Like it or not, these will be Trump’s refugees because years from now (especially if we reach the 70,000 mark by September 30th), no one will remember that Obama presided over 3 1/2 months of the fiscal year.

Again, the data base goes on for 22 pages and I’ve picked those with the largest numbers, or in a few cases ones that interested me like the small number of Jews entering as refugees.  If HIAS (formerly Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) still focused on Jewish refugees they would be out of business by now!

One last thing!

We have been admitting mostly Burmese Christians for probably a decade, but the number of Burmese Muslims (Rohingya) are on the rise and I note that, for this fiscal year, 1,108 of the ‘Moslems’ are from Burma.  I was also surprised to see how large a number of ‘Moslems’ there were from the DR Congo (325) when that whole flow was supposed to have been, we were led to believe, Christians.

4 Responses to “45,732 refugees admitted this fiscal year so far, 45% are Muslim”

  1. nafbpo7 said

    Unlimited Numbers of Refugees will Pour into the U.S. Weekly
    By S. Noble – May 28, 20171
    The State Department has announced that the cap is lifted on refugees coming into the U.S. Refugees will soon begin pouring into the United States at the rate of 1500 or more per week by next month. Funds for this influx were supplied by the Republican spending bill.

    This is a huge break from what President Trump promised on the campaign trail last year. Thank judicial tyranny and the Republican Congress for this. Keep in mind that a Democratic Congress would insist on no borders at all and spending would be unlimited.

    This decision was conveyed in an email on Thursday to the private agencies in countries around the world that help refugees manage the nearly two-year application process to enter the United States.

    Don’t misunderstand. It’s not really two-years. The paperwork sits on a desk for two years. The vetting for some nationals is still poor to non-existent.

    In an email, Jennifer L. Smith, a department official, wrote that the refugee groups could begin bringing people to the United States “unconstrained by the weekly quotas that were in place.”

    What’s Up With That?

    When U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii blocked the travel ban, while he didn’t specifically address the cap, he blocked implementation of two sections of the executive order. Those sections included the admissions cap of 50,000 refugees per annum.

    The ruling legally requires Trump to go back to pre-executive order immigration levels or Trump will be in violation of the judge’s order.

    It’s not really constitutional. A president has the right to decide on behalf of Americans who can enter the country.

    Judge Watson based his order on campaign statements made by Trump that suggests religious animus. If Trump tries to slow the pace, he will have the same legal problems with the courts.

    We currently live under judicial tyranny with Obama embeds dictating to the President of the United States who is trying to avoid articles of impeachment.

    Continue reading here:

    Liked by 1 person

    • ‘A president has the right to decide on behalf of Americans who can enter the country.’

      THIS is not the Reality, as of this date…maybe future generations, depending how much the President packs the lower tier federal Courts.

      YOU SEE Obama DID transform this Country.


  2. My opinion is that we can’t afford ANY of this, for a multitude of reasons, which I’m sure are the same as most everyone else’s on this site.

    The mental and physical illness that is present within this “refugee” invasion is what I find the most immediately threatening.

    Liked by 1 person



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: