“The costs are staggering. The costs are truly staggering!”
(Don Barnett, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies)
I reported a few days agoon the ‘Report to Congress’ released by the US State Department as part of the consultation with Congress requirement of the Administration when determining how many refugees will be admitted to the US beginning on Monday.
Here LifeZetteanalyzed a portion of that report about what you pay for the program (actually only a small portion of the costs!).
America’s refugee program cost taxpayers more than $125 billion over a 10-year period, according to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report to Congress on a proposed cut in the émigré cap.
The report accounts for refugees resettled from abroad, foreigners in the United States granted asylum, and people participating in special programs set up for Iraqis, Cubans, Haitians, and Amerasians from Vietnam.
The cost to federal taxpayers for refugees and individuals granted asylum in fiscal years 2005 through 2014 came to $74.7 billion, plus an additional $21.9 billion for state matching funds for programs available to refugees.
The total cost was $96.65 billion. Including spouses and children, the overall cost to state and federal taxpayers rises to $125.696 billion.
That total includes the cost of relocating refugees, services provided by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), child care subsidies and three main welfare programs — Medicaid, Medicare, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.
In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, President Donald Trump alluded to the cost in arguing that U.S. generosity is better demonstrated near locations from which refugees come.
The nearly $126 billion estimated cost over 10 years, however, represents but a fraction of the total taxpayer investment. It does not include more than a dozen other programs, such as Social Security, various tax credits, education spending, and other welfare.
[Other welfare supplied by federal and state taxpayers would include food stamps, and other costs include federally required interpreters for courts, medical care and schools, the criminal justice system and most often ignored—remittances—money the refugees send home and out of our economy.—-ed]
Don Barnett, a fellow at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), told LifeZette that it makes sense to take a comprehensive approach to assessing refugee costs that go beyond just the relocation expenses.
Unlike other immigrants, who must wait five years before they are eligible for government-assistance programs, refugees and individuals granted asylum immediately can receive welfare.
“The costs are staggering. The costs are truly staggering,” said Barnett.
The government report estimates that in a typical year, major HHS programs cost about $3,300 per refugee.
A 2015 study by CIS, which favors lower levels of immigration, attempted to account for a broader range of costs imposed by refugees. The study found that the five-year cost of relocating refugees from the Middle East came to $64,370 per person and $257,481 per household.
Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, did not dispute the government’s cost estimates.
A better approach than a bureaucratic, taxpayer-funded refugee system, Nowrasteh said, is to allow private citizens and organizations to sponsor refugees and take financial responsibility for them. He said Canada has such a system and that the United States has had similar policies in the past.
By all accounts (from people I politically agree with!) Trump gave a great speech at the UN yesterday. And, although we stepped back from one of two new compacts related to refugees under construction in the world body, we participate in this one. (See herethat Trump removed us from a second UN compact deliberation.)
Writing at the Center for Immigration Studies, Nayla Rush, tells us what is wrong with the deliberations that would actually expand the protection the 1951 Refugee Convention presently offers to supposedly only legitimate refugees.
(See wikipedia for more on the 1951 Convention and don’t miss the definition of who is a ‘refugee.’)
In my view, these negotiations are one more way to expand the definition of what constitutes a ‘refugee’ which then would allow more people from the third world to move to the first without them having to prove that they would be persecuted if returned home.
By the way, this discussion of a new refugee compact was launched at Obama’s UN pow-wow in the fall of 2016 when they all were assuming Hillary was moving to the Oval!
U.S. Continues to Back UN Refugee Compact that Contradicts Administration Goals
Despite announcing a lower refugee-resettlement ceiling for the coming fiscal year, the Trump administration continues to support the UN’s Global Compact on Refugees, which is in total contradiction to the administration’s refugee policies.
The final text of the Global Compact on Refugees was released late July. This refugee compact was expected to be adopted by UN member states (including the United States) at the 73rd General Assembly in New York later this week; but the vote is now expected to take place in December. The UN refugee compact seeks for more resettlement places while using expedited processing modalities; facilitating access to family reunification for resettled refugees and encouraging complementary pathways for refugees through private sponsorship programs (such as student scholarships, employment opportunities etc.) that would be additional to regular resettlement and are harder to monitor.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, announced the FY 2019 refugee ceiling of 30,000***, down from 45,000 for 2018 (both ceilings count as the lowest ceiling determinations since the creation of the refugee resettlement program following the Refugee Act of 1980). The reasoning behind such low ceilings is two-fold: Improving the screening and vetting of resettlement candidates (which means slower admissions) and reducing the untenable asylum backlog by reassigning refugee officers to asylum cases.
The Trump administration’s continued commitment to the UN agreement is puzzling.
Beware COMPLEMENTARY PATHWAYS!
UNHCR’s Protection head, Volker Türk, insisted on the need for a new international agreement on refugees other than the 1951 Refugee Convention.
According to him, the 1951 convention, while focusing on rights of refugees and obligations of states, does not deal with international cooperation; it “does not specify how you share the burden and responsibility, and that’s what the global compact does. It responds to one of the major gaps we have faced for decades.” Türk added: “Also, we would aim [through the Global Compact on Refugees] to get more resettlement places and find more ways refugees can move to third countries – such as through family reunification, student scholarships, or humanitarian visas, so that refugees can travel safely (what we call ‘complementary pathways’).”
You can readily see how the UN wants an expansion of the definition of the 1951 definition of refugee protection to family members (who may not be legitimate refugees in their own right), students, and whatever that broad new category called humanitarian visasmight allow.
Rush has many more details,click here to read it all.
I’m assuming the Trump Administration stayed involved in this series of meetings so they would continue to be informed. I guess we will find out in a few months how serious the President is about not letting the rest of the world dictate who the ‘new Americans’ will be.
***I’ve been arguing for a refugee cap of zero for the coming year. It would be the only way to force Congress to review the program with an eye to serious reform. I would argue that the United Nations should be completely removed from our decisions on who comes to America and who doesn’t.
At the present time the UN is dictating that we take theDR Congoleseand the Burmese Rohingya. Before that it was the Bhutanese camps they wanted cleared and we said ‘yes master’ and did it! They pushed heavily for us to take the Syrian Muslims from their camps too, but Trump managed to stop that.
If we are going to take any refugees, we should demand that we pick only those we want!
Update March 24th: You can see a video of the panel discussion hereat CIS.
And, the St. Cloud Timesonce again shows how biased it is against anyone who challenges the power in that city and state that is hauling in third world workers for the slaughterhouse industry ( while faking humanitarian concern!) by falling for the Southern Poverty Law Centers‘ shoddy research.
(RRW is listed as a “hate group” as well, and as you know I’m a single blogger/journalist with NO group—so much for their research.)
And, by the way, Breitbarthas a big story on Friday entitled:
Disgraced Media Already Hit with Massive Layoffs in 2018
Newspapers are going down and sloppy work and biased reporting by the likes of the St. Cloud Timeswill eventually bring it down too!
This is what I mean….
In large type, reporter Stephanie Dickrell and her editor post this subheadline so as to bias readers right up front.
Group hosting panel was labeled an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2016
A St. Cloud City Council member will travel to the nation’s capital this week to discuss the local impact of refugee resettlement.
Jeff Johnson will be part of a panel Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., discussing whether states should be able to opt out of the federal Refugee Resettlement Program.
The host of the panel, the Center for Immigration Studies, says its agenda is pro-immigrant but for low immigration. The Southern Poverty Law Center listed it as an anti-immigrant hate group in 2016.
Last fall Johnson proposed a moratorium on refugee resettlement in St. Cloud. The motion failed and an ensuing council vote declared St. Cloud a welcoming city.
The National Press Club panel discussion — “Should States Be Able to Opt Out of the Refugee Resettlement Program?” — will use a January reportby center fellow Don Barnettas a starting point. He outlined what say states have in refugee resettlement, highlighting “federal overreach.”
He includes a history of the states’ interactions with the refugee program and recommendations for better defining the state role. It also includes a case study of a recent federal lawsuit filed by the state of Tennessee which claims the refugee resettlement program was an imposition by Washington over which the state had no control.
In addition to Johnson and Barnett, the panel will include Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which represented Tennessee in the lawsuit. Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian will serve as moderator.
Minnesotans, this is the time to develop more alternative media in the state.
Papers like the St. Cloud Times (which swallows the lies of Leftwing money-grubbing groups like SPLC) will die and you need to be ready with other sources of news that support your interests and concerns. And, the more the merrier!
Washington, D.C. (March 12, 2018) – The Center for Immigration Studies announces the creation of a new immigration data portal. The portal consolidates government agencies’ most recent immigration statistics in one location, allowing easy access to detailed information on a multitude of key topics in immigration such as crime, illegal immigration, and labor.
The Center’s goal is to lessen the challenge of finding important immigration statistics so that fact-based research can play a larger role in informing the national debate on immigration policy. Whether the user is searching for specific numbers on refugee arrivals by country of origin, E-verify statistics reports, or the jobsite location and wage data of requested foreign workers, this portal will make finding the data dramatically easier.
Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, said “It is my hope that the immigration debate will benefit from the launching of this data portal. It is imperative that immigration policy be formed by accurate data; this initiative will make it easier for all parties to access crucial immigration statistics.”
This news was all over my alerts yesterday morning (one version of the story at Business Insider):
Study finds refugees actually pay the US government thousands more than they get from it
The glowing (and deceptive) report was clearly released now as a run-up to World Refugee Day next Tuesday and has probably been widely distributed on Capitol Hill by the legion of lobbyists for the refugee industry.
My reaction was that the conclusions fly in the face of all common sense. And, LOL!, I wondered right away whether they included the costs to the criminal justice system. Imagine how much those life prison terms of some refugee murderers and terrorists cost the American taxpayer!
So, I wondered if there was a rebuttal and sure enough there is!
If you see the deceptive news published in your newspaper, you must respond with a ‘letter to the editor’ using key points of Jason Richwine’s rebuttal. You can’t let their propaganda go unanswered.
The Center for Immigration Studiesresponded here this morning (emphasis is mine):
Refugees do not pay their own way
A working paper released this week by Notre Dame economists William Evans and Daniel Fitzgerald makes the head-scratching claim that refugees, despite below-average incomes and high rates of welfare use, pay $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits during their first 20 years in the United States. Immigration-boosting wonks such as Matt Yglesias and Dylan Matthews immediately trumpeted the findings, and the Washington Post and FiveThirtyEight added favorable write-ups.
They should have been more skeptical. The claim that refugees contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits is simply implausible.
So how does the Evans-Fitzgerald paper come to such an implausible result? First, the authors count all (or nearly all) taxes paid by refugees but reduce the services they receive to six social programs — cash welfare, SSI, Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid. All other costs that governments might incur from immigration — housing, infrastructure, education, law enforcement, and so on — do not count.
Second, they fail to adjust for the underreporting of those social programs…
Third, the paper excludes refugees’ minor children. When refugees cannot afford to provide food, housing, or medical care to their children, taxpayers foot the bill. Most of those costs are omitted.
Fourth, the authors restrict the refugee age range to 18-65, cutting off the analysis just before the age where most people stop working and begin participating in the nation’s costly retirement programs.
By the way, we bring in a significant number of refugees to the US over the age of 65 who immediately draw on SSI.
Don’t miss CIS’s previous detailed study of the cost of refugees to taxpayers, here. Middle Easterners are especially expensive!
This is posted in my ‘What you can do’ category (created because new readers are asking). If you see the deceptive report mentioned in your local newspaper do not let it go unanswered!Send a letterto your member of Congress too and tell him or her (in advance) to watch for the propaganda (Big Lie!) campaign about refugees supposedly adding to the US economy. (The cheap labor supply might add to the bottomline at Tyson Foods, but not to the overall economy!).
Nayla Rush at the Center for Immigration Studies has done the work for us and analyzed a new UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report which makes suggestions for reform that basically increases the number of migrants (aka refugees) that would move from the third world to the first.
Watch for it! They will be pushing for “alternative pathways” because they know that the refugee system they have been relying on is crumbling.
Of course, one option in that reform (in my opinion) should be to sever our connection with the UNHCR altogether and choose our own refugees (and how many!) and thus leave the UN out of our immigration business!
Wouldn’t it be great if Trump UN Ambassador Nikki Haley could preside over the process of severing our ties to the UNHCR! (I can dream!)
Here is Rush’s opening paragraph:
The latest United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) resettlement assessment report summarizes its 2015 activities and introduces its 2017 strategic direction and needs.1 At a time when refugee protection is addressed on a global scale, the report, “UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017”, provides us with insightful information about submission categories and acceptance rates, top resettlement countries of origin and destination, and more. It also suggests how badly in need of reform the entire refugee system is. [Of course the UN’s idea of reform and ours is very different!—ed]