The movie ‘Chappaquiddick’ opens in theaters this week and it got me thinking, what if…
What if justice had been served and Kennedy was not in the Senate to spearhead the bill that would become the Refugee Act of 1980.
Senator Ted Kennedy is responsible for most of the problems we have today with immigration, by 1969 he had already done some very real damage to this country. But he didn’t drive through the bill that became the Refugee Act of 1980 until ten years later, in 1979.
That bill was signed in to law in March 1980 (the 17th, St. Patrick’s Day, exactly) in Jimmy Carter’s final year. (I don’t recall if by March ol’ Carter knew, or suspected, he was a one-termer or not.)
The Refugee Act of 1980, which only a few weeks ago passed its 38th anniversary, had set up the flawed system we see today where nine major contractors (using taxpayer dollars) monopolize the program, and, up until President Trump came along, pretty much called the shots on how the USRAP was managed.
I attended the 30th anniversary shindig of the signing of the Act at Georgetown Univ. and wrote about it herea few years ago. I asked this in 2011 after listening to speakers at the Georgetown celebration:
Is there a conspiracy by NGO’s to bring asylum seekers to US borders?
The major take-away of the day for me was the obvious push toward greater use of the asylum portion of the law.
The Open Borders crew knew then that there were limits to how many refugees they could get in through the normal process and were beginning to hang their hats on migrants coming to the border (where an immigration lawyer awaits them) and asking for asylum.
So that “Caravan,” on its way to our southern border at this very moment, is a direct legacy of Ted Kennedy who should have been driven out of the Senate in that fateful year—1969—and sent to prison!
Would there eventually have been a Refugee Act, maybe, but then again maybe not!
They want to blame it all of course on Donald Trump (and Stephen Miller!), but the refugee slowdown has exposed the weakness of a scheme set up in 1979-1980 by then Senator Ted Kennedy (with Joe Biden) and Jimmy Carter.
The whole program was sold as a public-private partnership implying that there would be an equal sharing of finances and responsibility, but over the years the public share (your tax ‘contributions’) has grown while the private share has withered.
So that now, with the per refugee head payment dropping as fewer refugee are admitted, the program is being exposed for what it has become….
It is a monopolistic conglomeration of supposed ‘religious’ and ‘humanitarian’ charities living almost exclusively on the federal dole. Their budgets are fully dependent on the next shipment of paying clients (aka refugees).
Come on Congress! It is time to dump it or fix it.
I notice that with all the talk about reforming LEGAL immigration there is no talk of reforming the obviously seriously flawed USRAP!
The program is “under siege” say the refugee agencies and their media lackeys!
Rarely do I post twice on one story, but I told you about this one yesterday (here) and it is full of revealing information. I see it is a ‘Religion News Service’ story that appears herein the National Catholic Reporter showcasing (again) that anti-Trump rally last month at the White House.
Do they really think the average American taxpayer will be moved by a photo of Muslims praying against the President as a publicity stunt?
Boo hoo! We Catholics are running out of your money!
USCCB [US Conference of Catholic Bishops—ed] officials said they are still deciding how to move forward but already expect to close about 15 sites this year, shifting from 75 to as few as 60. Catholic Charities, the primary affiliate for the USCCB’s on-the-ground resettlement work, said that of the 700 full-time employees across its network who work on refugee resettlement, more than 300 are estimated to see a temporary layoff, permanent layoff or possible reassignment due to the refugee ban.
An April 2017 report from the Episcopal News Service said the Episcopal Church would cut its 31-member affiliate network by six in 2018.
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service said it had not closed any sites, though before she resigned earlier this week as its president and CEO, Linda Hartke confirmed the agency has made staff reductions at its headquarters. [This is especially funny because we know that many staff at headquarters quit due toHartke’s poor management!—Now it is all Donald’s fault!—How convenient!—ed]
Maybe if the top dogs took pay cuts, and raised PRIVATE money, the lower level staff could be retained?
Local organizations appear to bear the brunt of the cuts. [Sure they do, no one really expects the CEO’s to take pay cuts.—ed]Paula Torisk, deputy director of refugee resettlement for Catholic Charities San Antonio, which works with the USCCB’s program, said her office has laid off at least 23 people because of the various bans — around 30 percent to 35 percent of her staff.
She said many of those who lost their jobs are, like Giri [refugee star of the story—ed], themselves refugees or former refugees who have since become U.S. citizens. Her office previously relied on their cultural knowledge and language skills but has been forced to hire translators in their absence.
“You’ve got staff taking on cases where they don’t speak the language,” said Torisk, who has worked with refugees since 1996. “I’ve heard other resettlement programs say, ‘How can we pay for [interpreters] if our funding is cut?’”
She also said that due to uncertainty surrounding the program, funding for the longer-term refugee assistance — such as providing English classes — is now doled out on a quarterly basis instead of annually throughout Texas.
The whole 1980 system is based on an ever-expanding refugee flow to America and over the ensuing decades the contractors (below) got fat and lazy because federal money flowed like a river to them and they built fiefdoms with it!
I repeat: Where is Congress?
The nine refugee contractors “fighting for their survival”….
The number in parenthesis is the percentage of their income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the refugees and get them signed up for their services (aka welfare)! From most recent accounting, here.
Don Barnett writing at the Center for Immigration Studiestoday explained in detail how states are forced to accept and pay for third world refugees admitted through the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) to the US and sent to 49 states.
Read this (these are the opening points in the ‘backgrounder’) and then ask: Where is Congress?
(Emphasis below is mine):
The State of Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the federal government in March 2017 claiming that the refugee resettlement program was an imposition by Washington over which the state had no control.1 The lawsuit is pending, but it highlights a deep problem with how the refugee resettlement program has evolved since the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980.
This Backgrounder traces the history of the federal-state relationship regarding refugees, identifies flaws, and proposes solutions. Among the findings:
~Repealing regulation 45 CFR 400.301 could have the immediate effect of allowing states to withdraw from the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) and end initial resettlement activities in the state.2
~Today, states that withdraw from the program find the program continues in the state with the potential to operate on a larger scale than before withdrawal and with no state participation.
~As implemented, states have a limited and ill-defined role in the federal USRAP.
~Congress has shirked its responsibility to fully fund the refugee resettlement program.
~The federal government has shifted much of the fiscal burden of refugee resettlement to states. Three years of reimbursement for the state portion of welfare programs used by refugees in the state, such as Medicaid, TANF and SSI, was authorized by the 1980 Refugee Act. This support was ended entirely.
~The Act authorized Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) and Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) for three years for refugees who do not qualify for cash welfare and Medicaid. This support was gradually scaled back; today RCA and RMA are available for only eight months.
~This cost shift to the states means the federal government is, in effect, using state funds to operate a federal program.In cases where a state asks to withdraw from the program, continuation of the program means the state has lost its ability to control its own budget and is deprived of its sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
~Consultation among “stakeholders” about where refugees are to be settled is ill-defined in the USRAP. At times there is no meaningful consultation with state authorities.
~The federal government uses a legally questionable regulation (45 CFR 400.301) rather than statutory law to allow private non-profits to operate in a state where the state has asked to withdraw from the program.
~By one reading of the law, prior to 45 CFR 400.301, there was no authority to resettle refugees in states that chose to withdraw from the program.In other words, prior to 1994 when 45 CFR 400.301 was introduced, the states were — knowingly or not — participating in and paying for a voluntary program from which they had every right to withdraw at any time with the expectation that no refugees would be resettled in the state.
And, I repeat! If there is no reform of the entire US Refugee Admissions Program in the next three years, simply reducing the numbersas the Trump Administration is doing is meaningless in the long run.
The President can and must, as part of any immigration reform, issue regulations in keeping with the original law wherever possible, and, or, tell Congress to rewrite the law if it is in our national interest to continue it at all.
If no permanent fix….
…..when President Trump’s term ends, refugee agencies and advocates will push for even larger numbers of refugees to make up for what they will dub the lost Trump years.
Looking for something to do? Get this information into the hands of your state governors and legislators!
The Trump Administration is on target to blow past its own 50,000 admission determination number in 2 weeks!
As we reported here, just as the Memorial Day weekend was getting underway, the US State Department announced to its contractors that it was going to open the refugee spigot wide again for the remaining months of fiscal year 2017 (the year ends on September 30th).
That means some of the federal refugee contractors, like this one in Ohio, may need to hire back some employees they had earlier let go, but there is still a question about how quickly Trump’s State Department and Dept. of Homeland Security can get the processing ramped-up abroad.
I had been waiting for the Trump White House to correct the mistake about opening the spigot, but their silence now signals that the White House is in agreement with the ramp-up!
President Obama authorized 120,000 [No! It was 110,000!—ed] refugees for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.
President Trump cut that in February to 50,000. But the State Department sent a memo in late May telling refugee groups they would no longer be restrained by weekly quotas.
Liz Walters of the International Institute of Akron says resettlement numbers have always ebbed and flowed, with the agency resettling as few as 25 and as many as 130 a month. She says how many will be coming now depends on what happens overseas.
“The big question mark is how many folks have been in process overseas and how quickly they can start to schedule those folks for travel or at what point they finish up their security clearances and can get them here before the end of the fiscal year.”
Walters notes that Trump’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year [begins Oct. 1, 2017—ed] includes funding to resettle 50,000 refugees, the minimum under the law.
As far as I can tell, there is no legal minimum!
I’m not lawyer, and perhaps there has been some case law or regulations that I don’t know about, but as I read the Refugee Act of 1980, there is no requirement for any specific number after 1982. Here (below) is the Act on admissions. There is a lot of discussion about procedures if the President needs to ‘up’ the numbers, but I don’t see any prohibition about going below 50,000!
Be sure to read the lawyourself and see that “consultation” is with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and as far as I can see only requires the President to supply them with information.
Do you see how clever the refugee industry propaganda machine is—we are only talking about admission levels, not reform of the whole program.
The only way to force Congress to scrap/reform the Refugee Act of 1980 is for Donald Trump to set the admissions number at zero for FY18 and tell Congress, no more until they get to work. Heck, make them work through the month of August!
He also has the power to stop the flow right now without any Executive Order.
Today the Trump admission level is at 47,434 (Wrapsnet) and, at the admissions rate announced on the eve of Memorial Day, he will thus blow past the 50,000 mark (set by him) in 2 weeks!
***By the way, USCRI is approximately 97% funded by you—taxpayers! See here.
Unless I find a definitive article about what exactly the judge in Hawaii ruled on the Trump Executive Order in the next couple of hours (I have a doc appt.), here is one news story from the AP(thanks to reader Theodore).
Also, according to several news sources discussing other pending cases, including Fox News , one argument in the Maryland case is absolutely nuts. I worry that judges ruling on the cases have no idea about what the US Refugee Act of 1980 says or how the program has been administered for 37 years!
It makes me want to scream!
The line that I see while searching just now, that is being spread by many news sources, is this one:
“The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it’s against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.”
We are assuming that comes from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society suit wereported here. The true gist of their argument is that they, the federal resettlement contractors, were expecting more paying “clients” and had built their budgets around the per head payment they were expecting with the unrealistic 110,000 refugees Obama said would come in the year he no longer was president!
For the umpteenth time, that 110,000 that Obama set last fall is a CEILING that the Administration says it will not surpass, it is not a goal!
And, that 110,000 was the highest Obama had ever set in his presidency. Trump has the absolute authority to reduce the ceiling, but more importantly he can bring in any number under whatever he set, or whatever Obama set!
Forget the EO!
President Trump has all the authority he needs to not import any more refugees this entire year (I’m not sure that his team even knows that he has no legal obligation to bring in even 50,000!).
As of this morning, we have admitted 38,106 refugees this fiscal year (2017) via Wrapsnet. 783 refugees arrived in the ten day period from the announcement of this EO and today when the “moratorium” was to go in to effect.
I repeat! The President does not have to call it a moratorium or include it in this EO. He can simply stop processing new refugees abroad with no further explanation!
President George W. Bush had 4 years under 50,000! His lowest year was 39,554. Even Obama had two years under 60,000 and well below the ceiling! See here.
Now look at this chart (below) very carefully. When I found it at Wrapsnet, the last year, 2016, was not complete. Know that we brought in just short of the 85,000 ceiling (a rare occurrence).
The federal refugee resettlement contractors have long wanted the president’s ‘determination’ each year to be a GOAL (a target) not a CEILING! But, the law says it is a ceiling. Look at the column for CEILING and the column for the number actually admitted!
What do you see? Rarely does the number admitted reach the CEILING.
In FY2006, they were 28,777 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2007, they were 21,718 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2008, they were 19,809 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2009, they were 5,346 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2010, they were 6,689 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2011, they were 23,576 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama?
In FY2012, they were 17,762 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama for leaving thousands “stranded in war-torn countries”?
Obama got closer to the lowered CEILING over the next few years.
You get my drift!
I’m begging ignorant and lazy reporters to get the facts!
And, I am sure you are scared as heck, as I am, to see judges making decisions based on sheer ignorance of the law.
See my post from last Friday about how Hawaii hypocrites! have “welcomed” only a tiny number of refugees over the years—none from Africa and only 5 (total) from two Muslim countries.
…..And, in September he can set the number for FY2018 at zero!
Just a reminder, the Refugee Act of 1980gave the President great latitude in setting over all refugee numbers for a 12 month period.
In September, for Fiscal year 2017, Obama set the cap (ceiling) for this year at 110,000 (way higher than normal).
In the 1980 law the ceiling was set at 50,000 (unless there was an emergency) and Congress must be consulted (which amounts to not very much) if the President wished to change (increase) the number during the year.
We showed you here in recent years that the ceiling proposed was often not met. (Not meeting the ceiling doesn’t require any consultation with Congress.)
In fact, George Bush had 4 years under 50,000. Two of those years followed the dramatic slowdown after 9/11 when the government feared Islamic terrorists could get in to the program.
In 2002 the number admitted was 45,896 and in 2003 it was 39,554 (from all the usual countries we took refugees from). Obama had a pretty relatively low year too in 2012 (58,238).
As I understand it, Trump’s new cap of 50,000 is not included in the Washington State court decision.
I’m arguing that 50,000 isn’t low enough and he could cap the level right now.
It would stop refugee admissions from all areas of the world, not just the seven terror hotspots identified in the so-called travel ban.
As of this morning Wrapsnet reports that (in a little over 4 months) we are at 32,968 admitted this fiscal year (not far off the level Bush admitted in 2003). The contractors are well-aware of the fact that they still have nearly 20,000 paying clients on the way, see here.
And here are the numbers of some of the groups of concern admitted in those 4 months:
Congress must reform the Refugee Act of 1980 and a slowdown for a few months is not enough incentive for them to get to work!
(It is not just about security either, it is about the economic costs as well, see here.)
If you haven’t already, tell Donald Trump what you think by clicking here. And, if you’ve done it once, do it again! Then go hereand see what else you can do with that comment!
“I do believe that future flows will be affected significantly!”
(Doris Meissner reacting to Trump win)
Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart has a good piece yesterday, a compendium of views from the refugee contractors and immigration industry activists. Check it out here.
I’ve got a couple more stories I want to mention this morning. The first is one focusing on Rutland, VT which has just recently been chosen by the US State Department as a new site for Syrian Muslim refugee resettlement after months of strong opposition that roiled the political waters in the town.
The articleat Vermont Public Radiofeatures quotes from Doris Meissner, a woman who is the doyenne of the Washington DC refugee/asylum/immigration circles.
Meissner was around for the passage of the original Refugee Act of 1980 and I’ve heard her speak a couple of times over the years. (Her bio ishere)
The first time was at the ‘celebration’ for the 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act at Georgetown University in 2010. I was struck by one thing Ms. Meissner said at a conference that seemed heavily weighted toward a discussion of the asylum portion of the Act and the opportunities it afforded to get more people in to the US.
She told the audience that the original discussions about asylum were geared toward the odd ballet dancer (referencing Russians I presume) who would ask for asylum when performing in the US. But, she and the audience seemed to be pleased that asylum was now a process that was getting tens of thousands in to the US each year as they feared the normal channel for refugee resettlement was constricting and not fast enough for their purposes.
In 2011, I wrote this post about asylum-seeking-Somalis at our southern border and suggested a Congressional investigation (where are you Trey Gowdy?) to determine if non-profit groups were actually aiding and abetting illegal aliens coming across the worldand who miraculously (who pays for the travel?) got the the US southern border and knew to ask for asylum. Meissner is quoted as saying that they have to wait too long in our normal process so they come here illegally. Congress should call Meissner to testify.
The specter of Donald Trump was haunting them already on October 29, 2015:
Again at Georgetown University, this time in October 2015, Meissner was the moderator of a panel on the upcoming 2016 Presidential election. Trump was on their minds and here is what I said in my post:
The “Trump phenomenon” has them obviously shaken and they are trying to figure out how to cope with it. The phrase “Trump phenomenon” was practically the first words out of Ms. Meissner’s mouth when she opened the session. They expected immigration to be an important issue in 2016, but with a different tone to the discussion, not Trump’s outright “anti-immigrant tone.” The whole presentation that followed was based on the understanding that this audience was all pro-Democrat/pro-Hillary.
The refugee resettlement industry needs your money (less money=fewer refugees)!
Back to the articleat Vermont Public Radio and what Ms. Meissner told them…
Doris Meissner is the former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute*** in Washington. She says given the strong language Trump used about refugees in the campaign, she expects big changes.
“It will not be business as usual where refugee resettlement is concerned once he’s in office, and that might in particular affect the Syrian program,” Meissner says.
Meissner says that while it’s possible Trump would send back refugees now living in the United States, she thinks that would be a very costly and difficult. And given the deplorable conditions in Syria, she believes it’s unlikely.
“But I do believe that future flows will be affected significantly,” she says.
Meissner says U.S. immigration law sets a benchmark of allowing 50,000 refugees a year into the country. But she says the president has the power to come to Congress on an annual basis to propose boosting or cutting that number, and she expects Trump to call for reductions.
Funds for the coming year’s refugee resettlement programs are currently included in the federal budget. But that budget is part of continuing resolution, which means it needs to be renewed by Congress on Dec. 9.
Meissner says she expects those funds will remain, but admits nothing is certain.
Meissner gets it, they can’t function without the money Congress appropriates so once again I am pleading with you to call your member of Congress and your two US Senators and tell them to DEFUND the RAP in the lame duck session that is now upon us!
Look for larger numbers of border crashers to be asking for asylum. I’ll bet a buck that massive numbers of immigration lawyers are on standby waiting to process asylum claims especially if the RAP is slowed or stopped.
*** See what I said about the Migration Policy Institute here in 2011.