The refugee arrival numbers would have to really take off in the next few months for the Trump Administration to get anywhere near the CEILING they proposed last September of 45,000 for FY18 which ends on September 30th.
So far, in 4 months, 6,704 refugees have been placed with almost every state seeing a few at least. Only Hawaii, Delaware, Mississippi and Wyoming have seen none. However, as regular readers know, Wyoming is the only state that has never had a program.
Will Trump break George Bush’s record?
At this rate, we could see around 20,000 admitted for the whole year which would give President Trump the distinction of the Prez admitting the lowest numbers in the history of the Refugee Act of 1980. (Kennedy, Biden, Jimmy Carter)
In the immediate wake of 9/11, Bush admitted 27,070 in 2002 and 28,117 in 2003.
Here is where the 6,704 for FY18 have been distributed so far:
Top Ten ‘welcoming’ states so far this year are:
Broken record alert! Reducing numbers for a few years is good because it gives some overloaded communities a reprieve, however, unless the law is reformed nothing will be permanent and the post-Trump era could see a huge push to make up for what the Open Borders Left would see as lost time.
This post is archived in my ‘refugee statistics’ category, here.
But, the UN still has 8,500 more to go to completely clean out their camps in Nepal.
The other day I mentionedthat the US under Obama committed to helping the UN clean out some of its African camps of the people from the DR Congo and I predicted the resettlement would go way beyond the 50,000 (over 5 years).
After all, the US State Department has a track record….
New readers may not know that in 2006, the Bush Administration said, oh sure, we will take 60,000 over 5 yearsof the displaced ‘Bhutanese’(really people of Nepali origin) living in UN camps in Nepal.
Never mind that we had no strategic interest and no responsibility for the Bhutan/Nepal quarrel.
The mostly Hindu ‘Bhutanese’ ended up in camps in Nepal when the country of Bhutan said they wanted only their people in their country (formerly known as Shangri-La). Nepal refused to take in its people flooding out of Bhutan causing the UN to build camps.
So, I presume looking for more docile third world workers, George W. Bush said sure!
We were only supposed to take 60,000 over five years. But guess what?
We are now up to 94,473 (2,000 more are being processed) in nearly ten years!
I’m telling you, once the spigot opens, closing it becomes almost impossible! Just look at the Somalis who we have been admitting for 30 years!
Nov 19, 2017-As the decade-long third country resettlement programme of the Bhutanese refugees living in eastern Nepal draws to a close, the fate of the those still in the camps hangs in the balance.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) and the UN refugee agency in Kathmandu confirmed that the third country resettlement scheme is closing down after the last batch of refugees leaves by the end of December.
Currently there are around 8,500 refugees in the camps in Jhapa district but both sides—Nepal government and the UNHCR—have yet to find alternatives for them.
There was pressure on Nepal government to locally assimilate the refugees in Nepal, but Kathmandu has been constantly saying that these refugees should be repatriated to Bhutan.
Nearly nine out of 10 Bhutanese refugees (90 percent) have been resettled since the launch of the third country resettlement programme in 2007, with nearly 111,000 refugees resettled in eight different countries. “Globally, far less than 1 percent of refugees are resettled. Thus, the resettlement programme for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal is truly exceptional,” the office said. The UNHCR, together with the international community, is working closely with the government of Nepal to find solutions for the remaining refugees, the UNHCR added. According to the UN office, with nearly 111,000 refugees resettled in third countries and only 8,500 of them remaining in Nepal, the opportunities to achieve durable solutions at this juncture are great.
[In 2006 we were told there were 100,000 that needed to be spread around the world, but see now they are up to nearly 120,000. Where did the extra 20,000 come from? Wandering in from the neighborhood?—ed]
Approximately 120,000 Bhutanese fled from their country and arrived in Nepal to become refugees from Bhutan in the early 1990s
They were lodged in several camps in Jhapa in eastern Nepal
The third country resettlement programme was launched in 2007
In the last one decade, nearly 111,000 refugees from Bhutan have been settled in various western countries, with the US alone receiving more than 90,000 of them
Nearly 2,000 refugees are currently undergoing screening process under the third country resettlement programme
The UN refugee agency says it is set to close down the third-country resettlement programme by early next
The last batch is likely to leave in December after which an estimated 8,500 Bhutanese refugees will remain in Nepal
Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbartdid some number crunching yesterday and the conclusion is that if the Trump Administration continues to admit refugees at this historically low level, our refugee admissions this year will be way below the CEILING Trump set in September for this fiscal year (45,000).
Will President Donald Trump beat George W. Bush’s record?
The number of refugees admitted into the country during the first month of FY 2018 by the Trump administration plummeted to 1,242 – an 87 percent decline from the 9,945 admitted during the first month of FY 2017 by the Obama administration.
The percentage of refugees admitted who are Muslim declined dramatically as well, from 45 percent in October 2016 to 23 percent in October 2017, according to the State Department interactive website.
Of particular note is the precipitous drop in the number of refugees admitted from the seven countries whose citizens were temporarily banned from traveling to the United States under the first travel ban, Executive Order 13679, issued by President Trump on January 27, 2017.
In October 2017, the first month of FY 2018, only 275 refugees from these seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudian, Syria, and Yemen — were admitted to the United States under the Refugee Admissions Program.
In contrast, in October 2016, the first month of FY 2017, a total of 4,581 refugees from these seven countries were admitted into the United States under the Refugee Admissions Program (1,352 from Somalia, 1,323 from Iraq, 1,297 from Syria, 414 from Iran, and none from either Libya or Yemen.)
This would beat the Bush record!
Should refugee admissions continue at this same pace for the remaining eleven months of FY 2018, the total number of refugees admitted for the entire fiscal year would be less than 15,000, which is 30,000 below the 45,000 cap for refugees set forward in the Trump administration’s presidential determination announced in September.
If it should be 15,000 that would be the lowest number admitted since the creation of the present system of admitting refugees. However, anything above George W. Bush’s two lowest yearsof 27,070 (2002) and 28,117 (2003) would not set any records. In both those years the CEILING was set at 70,000 (so much for ceilings having any meaning!).
The refugee resettlement industry — which receives almost all of its estimated $1 billion annual funding from the federal government — is already feeling the budget pinch resulting from the diminished number of new arrivals. [And, that is why you are seeing so many refugee ‘forums’ in various states seeking to gin-up negative media publicity against Trump—ed]
The harsh political reality now facing the refugee resettlement industry is that neither the Trump administration nor Congress have much inclination to meet that 45,000 annual refugee ceiling.
Needless to say, Yahoo News (here) is carrying the federal contractors’ water on the issue of the Presidential determination due any day on how many impoverished third worlders we would admit starting on October first.
I don’t want to go over the whole Yahoo story, and if you saw my post this morning, you got the gist of it. (LOL! You might want to check it out for the comments!).
But, this one paragraph made me so mad, I knew I wouldn’t sleep:
Even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a time of clear national emergency, President George W. Bush set the year’s cap at 80,000 and only paused the system for two months while the country got back on its feet. [They conveniently leave out the extremely low admission numbers that followed.—ed]
You see how they skew the facts to put Donald Trump in the worst light—he is worse even than that Bush they all hated so much, and that is saying something.
Here are the facts about the numbers after 9/11 (couldn’t reporter Flaherty look them up, or did she simply take the word of the advocates who are paid by the head to resettle refugees!)
First, that 2001 ceiling of 80,000 was set by Bill Clinton in September of 2000. The 2001 fiscal year began on October 1, 2000. Bush didn’t take office until January 2001.
Yes, Bush suspended the program for a few months (fear of terrorists among the refugees?). (So the precedent for suspending the program already exists.) Then he did set the ceiling at 70,000 the following year.
But what do you see?
In the two subsequent years Bush admitted only 27,070 and 28,117 respectively.
But, Trump is a monster for admitting over 50,000 this year?
And, for any reporters looking for the truth, here is the table since 2007:
What do you see? The sainted Obama only bumped up his ceiling in the final year of his presidency and even he had two of his eight years in the 50 thousands.
So how about a little honesty from the media from time to time?
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 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).
(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)
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.
Nevermind that the “refugees” are not Bhutanese, but in fact are Nepalis. They are originally from Nepal, had settled in Bhutan (probably illegally) and then Bhutan gave them the boot (wanting to keep Bhutan for true Bhutanese). Nepal, not an evil terrorist country, didn’t want their kinsmen back, so they lived in camps and the UN and the US State Department under George Bush said, what the heck we’ll take 60,000.
Remember Bush is an Open Borders guy and I suspect, although soft-hearted on immigrants generally, was largely driven by financial backers looking for cheap labor. Think about it, with captive LEGAL refugee laborers, big businesses keep wages low and their employees are additionally supported through taxpayer-funded “social services” to bring their living standards up (since their wages won’t do it alone). What a racket! (But, I’m digressing).
We have followed this story from its earliest days when the “refugees” proclaimed that they didn’t want to be resettled and dispersed around the world (Let us live together here with our brothers and sisters), but wanted to work things out with Bhutan and Nepal. Why we ever got into this squabble between neighbors is beyond me, but it was Bush’s then Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration who ultimately gave the green light, here. And, just as I said in my previous post about TPS, these really are economic migrants, they aren’t people being persecuted in their home country.
Now, the UN (which loves moving people around the world) is celebrating that they have dispersed 75,000 economic migrants to mostly the US. The story I’m posting below is confusing but it appears that we have now resettled 63,400. As recently as September the number was 60,000, here. I’ll bet you a buck this isn’t the final number!
December 13 2012, Kathmandu Nepal: Claiming to have resettled around 75,000 Bhutanese refugees from Nepal, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) confirmed the number in a joint statement. Under one of the largest and successful resettlement programs, more than 63,400 refugees were resettled in United States, 3,837 in Australia, 5,296 in Canada, 724 in Denmark, 710 in New Zealand, 326 in Netherlands, 546 Norway, and 257 in United Kingdom where Yagandra Kami a six year old boy became the 75,000 refugee to be part of major resettlement program. The Program was launched in November 2007.
Stephane Jaquemet, UNHCR Representative in Nepal said, ““This is a tremendous achievement, where we have successfully placed 75,000th Bhutanese refugee from Nepal to the United States [75,000th to US?—-ed] on Wednesday for the third country settlement. It has only been possible due to the incredible generosity of the resettlement countries, the resilience of the refugees, the great support of the Government of Nepal, and the exemplary partnership with IOM.”
The Bhutanese ethnic cleansing took place in early 1990s, where hundreds of thousand Nepali origin Bhutanese were forced for exile. [It would be like us sending Mexicans back to Mexico, and Mexico rejecting them—ed] They were forced to be limited in overcrowded refugee camps in eastern Nepal with no progress toward a resolution of their plight. Many rounds of bilateral talks between the governments of Nepal and Bhutan could not resolve the issue. [Why didn’t we just tell Nepal to repatriate its own people!–ed]
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as binding international treaties signed by Bhutan, ensures the right of the refugees to return to their country. During this long period of exile, however, Bhutan has not allowed a single refugee back. In midst of that the US and other supporting agencies started the resettlement program which has led in ensuring at least a quality of life for the refugee.
Quality of life? Just now I was looking back at reports of all the problems the mostly Buddhist Bhutanese have experienced in America. Yes, my critics will tell me many others are doing just fine. One post is about a Baltimore murder of a Bhutanese refugee, here. And in that post I said this:
I just typed ‘Bhutanese murdered’ into the search function here at RRW and up came this archive of all the problems the Bhutanese are experiencing—others murdered, one killed by an abortion doctor, inner city beatings, suicides, and the list goes on.