Capital Research Center publishes an overview of the US Refugee Admissions Program

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran, September 16, 2018:

James Simpson has done an outstanding job of pulling together facts about the history of how the US came to be the top refugee resettlement country in the world. Hint: It all began with the UN!

And, then in this three-part series gives readers the facts about who we are bringing to America and how much it costs us—the US taxpayer.

He begins his serialized report this way:

Resettling Refugees: An International Agenda

Summary: A vast network of foundations, non-profits, government entities and political organizations have a vested interest in the continued growth of the resettlement of refugees in America. Because they receive billions of dollars in federal grant money, publicly-financed, tax-exempt organizations have significant incentives to support political candidates and parties that will keep these programs alive. These organizations need to be thoroughly audited and the current network of public/private immigrant advocacy and resettlement organizations needs to be completely overhauled. Resettling refugees should be a voluntary, genuinely charitable activity, removing all the perverse incentives government funding creates.

The refugee resettlement program is popular with many policymakers. It enjoys bipartisan support in Congress and state houses because it supplies low-wage, low skill labor that many big businesses crave, while enabling supporters to embrace “diversity” and thus avoid the Left’s favorite attacks and mischaracterizations: “bigot,” “racist,” “xenophobe,” “Islamophobe,” etc. This faux-moralizing on the Left stifles a necessary conversation our nation sorely needs. Meanwhile, the Left’s true motive is to import ever more people from third-world nations that are likely to become reliable Democrat voters once they achieve citizenship.

Under the Trump presidency, the United States’ refugee resettlement has been temporarily reduced, but by no means curtailed. A change in administration could resuscitate it overnight. There are many objectionable aspects of this program, not the least of which is finding resources to fund this enormous undertaking. The difficulty associated with assessing the true costs of the programs key to resettling refugees presents another obstacle to policymakers at every level of government.

Continue reading here for a history of the program.

Then here is Part II:

It is important for readers to know that although we most often talk about the actual Refugee admissions numbers, there are tens of thousands more considered ‘refugees’ by the US government for the purpose of providing federal dollars for their care as they become ‘New Americans.’

Resettling Refugees: Who’s Coming to America?

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), refugees are:

[P]eople who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

This mirrors the U.N. definition established at the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. It is important to note here, however, that under these definitions, “individuals who have crossed an international border fleeing generalized violence are not considered refugees.” This includes large numbers of people who are regularly resettled anyway, for example some of the Syrians fleeing that country’s conflict, and most—if not all Somalis.

Those who meet the definition include:

~refugees (those seeking protection in the United States who are not already in the country),

~asylum seekers or asylees (those who apply for asylum after coming to the U.S.),

~Cuban/Haitian Entrants,

~Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) and

~trafficking Victims.

The Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) program is also administered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, although UACs do not meet the definition of “refugee.”

Table I below provides up-to-date estimates for each category.

Get a load of these numbers!

Simpson table 1

The table shows that this category of legal entry to the US is a much bigger problem than the one we usually discuss on these pages which is the Refugee column.

Don’t miss the total admitted in the last full year of the Obama presidency—269,491!

But, see that the Trump Administration is presiding over the arrival of a huge number (higher than Obama’s welcome!) of Special Immigrant Visa holders from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Continue here.

And, last but not least! You really need to read the whole thing yourself, but prepare to be sick when you see how many millions of dollars are flowing out of the US Treasury to hundreds of non-profits who are in one way or another in the business of bringing in and then spreading refugees and other migrants around the US while lobbying for ever higher admissions numbers (aka paying clients!).

Part III is here

Resettling Refugees: Social and Economic Costs

Simpson begins with the usual nine federal contractors, but that is only the tip of the iceberg!

Federal Refugee Resettlement Grants

cws protest at WH 2

Think about this!  Earlier this year Church World Service and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society helped organize this protest against the President. Combined, those two refugee contractors consumed $620 million taxpayer dollars in the last ten years.  Why are we paying for this? https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/church-world-service-and-hias-join-cair-to-protest-at-white-house/

The nine VOLAGs, their many affiliates, and unaccompanied alien children contractors all receive funding from the federal government to resettle the various refugee categories. As mentioned earlier, unaccompanied alien children do not meet the definition of “refugee,” however their resettlement is managed through the Office of Refugee Resettlement and they are included when calculating the total cost of the overall program.

Most funding comes in the form of grants. Prime awards are grants directly from the federal government to the state or the contractor. Sub-awards are those given to contractors by other contractors or state governments that received the prime grant. They are left out to avoid double counting. Table III below enumerates prime grants to VOLAGs and unaccompanied alien children contractors for refugee resettlement and related programs. Some of the VOLAGs, for example the Ethiopian Community Development Council, focus almost entirely on refugee resettlement. Others, like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, International Rescue Committee, and World Relief Corporation of the National Association of Evangelicals, have a broader mission.

Of the latter, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is the largest. As Table III shows, in FY 2018 USCCB received $47.7 million for resettlement purposes. However, USCCB participates in other federal grant programs and that year received a total of $363.9 million from the federal government.

Here is a chart you need to keep handy. Prepare to be sick!

Billions of dollars have flowed to the refugee contractors in the last ten years alone!

Simpson table 2

The nine major contractors (VOLAGS) that monopolize the US Refugee Admissions Program are these:

Church World Service (CWS)
Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) (secular)
Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM) (DFMS is its other name)
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)
International Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular)
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (secular)
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
World Relief Corporation (WR)

Thanks to Jim Simpson for letting us know just how much each is being paid from the US Treasury!

Please, please take time to read the rest of Part III, it is stunning the amount of your money being distributed to non-profits who then act as political agitation groups!

And, these dollars do not include the cost of welfare, education, medical care, housing, etc. that you pay for!

Tell the White House to reform the whole program and begin by getting rid of middlemen federal contractors!

This is no way to run a government!

Also see:

If the President foolishly pushes Jeff Sessions out of the Justice Department, the Senate will never confirm a replacement who would carry out the immigration control agenda that Sessions has undertaken.

The Smear Campaign against Ronald Mortensen

(Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

National Review, by Hans A. von Spakovsky and Ana Quintana, June 2, 2018:

The Trump administration’s pick for a refugee-resettlement post is highly qualified but has met with bad-faith criticism.

Last week the White House announced it will nominate Ronald Mortensen to head the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM). With decades of experience in humanitarian assistance, diplomacy, and management, Mortensen is well qualified for the job. Yet the Left is rushing to its battle stations to try and stop his confirmation.

The State Department describes PRM’s mission this way: “to provide protection, ease suffering, and resolve the plight of persecuted and uprooted people around the world on behalf of the American people.” A look at Mortensen’s career makes clear he’s an ideal candidate to run this arm of America’s engagement with the world.

A 20-year veteran of the Foreign Service, Mortensen has labored to ease suffering on four continents. Working with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in the U.S. Agency for International Development, he was sent to Haiti after the earthquake and went to west Africa to help fight the Ebola outbreak. He flew to Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the invasion in 2003 and has led disaster-assistance response teams there five times. Mortensen also has served in Pakistan, Ethiopia, Sudan, and the Congo.

As he noted to a reporter, “saving lives and alleviating human suffering — what better job can there be?”

But overseeing the $3 billion–plus budget of PRM isn’t just a matter of humanitarianism. Mortensen — with a master’s degree in public administration and a Ph.D. in political science — also has what it takes to captain this ship. In addition to gaining extensive management experience while working for the government, Mortensen was director of human resources and international entry for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, an especially complex management puzzle given the stringent new visa security procedures that were set up after 9/11.

So where’s the controversy? Why are activists on the left so outraged?

As its name suggests, PRM manages refugee issues — both helping those abroad and resettling some in the U.S. What’s driving the Left’s smear campaign is a policy disagreement over the balance between these two approaches. The Trump administration correctly believes it is more effective to use the limited taxpayer funds available to help the greatest number of people, which means focusing on assistance overseas rather than the very costly process of resettling a relative handful of refugees in hard-pressed American communities.

The administration’s critics, however, want ever-higher levels of refugee arrivals. Many refugee-advocacy groups see the admission of more and more refugees as a kind of moral litmus test, despite the fact that each dollar spent on resettling a refugee in the U.S. could help care for twelve refugees abroad.

What should be a civil policy disagreement has turned into a smear campaign against Mortensen. The ACLU has falsely called him an “anti-immigrant zealot.” The Anti-Defamation League has defamed him with an erroneous claim that his supposedly “extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric” is “disqualifying.” And the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is “infamous for lumping mainstream conservative nonprofits alongside legitimate hate groups,” according to the Capital Research Center, has slammed Mortensen because of his connection to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a mainstream think tank the SPLC perversely labels a “hate group.”

What makes this last smear especially implausible is that Mortensen, in his work as a fellow at CIS, has written only on issues related to illegal immigration, not refugees. But this distinction is lost on those whose only recommendation on immigration and refugee resettlement is “More!” — even if it means helping fewer people.

At their core, U.S. immigration and refugee programs must serve U.S. interests, support our allies, and help those in greatest need. That cannot happen without serious reforms to the status quo.

Mortensen has spent years away from home delivering food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, clothes to the shivering, and housing to the homeless. He knows how to help the largest number of refugees with the funds entrusted to him by the American taxpayer. He is exactly what this agency needs, and Americans will be proud of his service when he is confirmed.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow, and Ana Quintana a senior policy analyst, at the Heritage Foundation.

D-day approaching for Trump on refugee resettlement

Most Somali refugees start out here, at the United Nations Daadab refugee camp on the Kenya-Somalia border. Between 5,000 and 11,000 per year are sent to the United States, along with thousands of others from Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oct. 1 brings new year and big decision on number of Muslims to import

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sept. 11, 2017:

When President Trump took office in January, he inherited his predecessor’s hand when it came to refugee resettlement, as President Obama had put the United States on the hook for 110,000 displaced persons gathered in United Nations camps – every one of them destined for an American city.

In his executive orders, Trump tried to pause refugee resettlement for 120 days along with his 90-day travel ban from six mostly Muslim countries, all of which were shot down by the courts.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump’s executive order and won’t release a decision until sometime next year.

But that decision should have little to no impact on Trump’s control over refugee numbers in the new fiscal year starting Oct. 1. He can set the cap at zero if he wants or end the most potentially destructive resettlements, which are from Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Burma and Afghanistan.

In short, Trump never “owned” the refugee program. He inherited it from Obama and when he tried to alter it, he encountered a ferocious backlash from the courts, the media, the federal bureaucracy and the private contractors that resettle refugees with money almost exclusively collected from the U.S. taxpayer.

That all ends on Oct. 1. Now, in the weeks leading up to that date, Trump, in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, must send a presidential-determination letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee informing Congress of the annual cap on refugees. This cap or “ceiling” is the maximum number of refugees the Trump administration wants to allow into the U.S. in fiscal 2018.

Trump will no longer be able to blame Obama or the courts. He will officially own the refugee program. If he sets the cap at zero, he will be in full compliance with federal law, according to experts on the Refugee Act of 1980.

WND asked several well-known conservatives familiar with the refugee program how they would advise Trump on this issue if they were in his administration.

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, said Trump should make good on his promise.

“Follow through on his campaign promises, and stop the refugee influx entirely until such time, even if it never comes, when we can distinguish jihad terrorists from peaceful refugees,” Spencer said.

Trump famously said during his campaign he would suspend the program entirely “until we can figure out what the hell is going on” with regard to rising Islamic terrorism across the globe.

Ann Corcoran, who has followed refugee resettlement for more than a decade, said Trump has plenty of reason to do just that and still come across as a great humanitarian by focusing on needy Americans.

“The public should be outraged to learn that in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which have left tens of thousands of Americans homeless, that we are poised to take in thousands of impoverished refugees when we now have our own refugees, struggling people who have lost their homes, lost everything, with their lives shattered, living in tents, shelters and RVs,” Corcoran said. “To bring in more from other countries in a time like this would be the ultimate insanity.”

The U.S. has resettled more than 800,000 refugees since fiscal 2004. According to the State Department’s refugee database, America has admitted roughly 160,000 Iraqi refugees since 2007 and more than 140,000 Somalis over the past two decades, 24 years after that country’s civil war started.

More than 1 percent of Somalia’s total population has been transferred to Western democracies in Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States over the past 30 years.

There has never been a compelling case made to the American people as to why they should continue this transfer of population from the Third World to America other than the fact that some nations such as Somali are embroiled in never-ending tribal wars.

The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement spends more than $2 billion annually to resettle foreign refugees into American cities, but that doesn’t include welfare benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing and educating refugee children. All told, the program has been estimated at up to $10 billion per year.

Daniel Horowitz, author of the book “Stolen Sovereignty,” says Trump’s job is actually quite simple.

“Obama used [his authority under the Refugee Act] to the detriment of the country to bring in over 100,000 refugees in his last year in office; Trump can use it to protect our security by setting the cap at zero,” Horowitz writes Monday in the Conservative Review.

The Refugee Act was sold to the public in 1980 as a way of granting Congress and the states more input, but “it left the door open for a president who doesn’t respect his nation’s concerns to unilaterally bring in as many refugees as he desires,” Horowitz adds. “This has been a source of much consternation for conservatives, because over the past two decades, this has allowed the presidents to flood the country with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia, Iraq, and other places that do not fit the description of religious or ethnic persecution.”

But now the shoe is on the other foot, he says.

“The president most certainly may bring in as few as he wants. There is no mandatory minimum. Now that he is no longer working off Obama’s FY 2017 determination, he can chart his own course, without Congress and without the meddling courts.”

Well-heeled resettlement agencies such as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the International Rescue Committee and their equivalents in the Lutheran, Catholic and Episcopal churches certainly will file lawsuits against any Trump plan that drastically reduces or eliminates the number of refugees flowing into U.S. cities, but Horowitz says they won’t have a legal leg to stand on.

That’s because Trump won’t be using any executive order to try to undo something already set in motion by Obama. He will be able to chart his own course.

Horowitz writes:

Moreover, as Christians and Jews in the Middle East are becoming extinct, much of the resettlement program has become a fundamental transformation of America by bringing in thousands of non-assimilating Muslims. The cost to Americans in terms of welfare, security, and culture is staggering [D1] — and it all enriches self-promoting and parasitic refugee contractors.

We’ve brought in close to one million refugees since FY 2004. According to the State Department’s refugee database, America has admitted roughly 160,000 Iraqi refugees since FY 2007. We have admitted over 143,000 Somalis over the past two decades, 24 years after the civil war commenced. Why should we actively bring in more?

According to a Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society conference call last Thursday, current funding levels are enough to support an influx of 75,000 new refugees per year.

Here are some other nuggets gleaned from the call by Corcoran:

  • Seventy-five thousand is their minimum target number for FY2018 in order to not “undermine [their] infrastructure” (code for keeping the federal money coming so they can pay salaries and rent, but of course they never admitted that to listeners on the call). Less than 50,000 would mean “long lasting erosion” of the program.
  • Everything is very confused this year they say. No Presidential Determination (PD) letter yet.
  • They say the Report to Congress (in advance of the PD) has come in June or July in some previous years. It usually is mid-September because until the last couple of years,
  • Congress didn’t care what the president sent up. Other than a few diligent staffers, it is likely no members actually ever looked at the report.
  • They admit they have a stable of lawyers ready and waiting for all possibilities from this White House.
  • They even suggested there is a possibility that Trump would make no presidential determination on refugees. One of their people remarked that Bush delayed his PD immediately after 9/11, but that was understandable they admitted (implying the Trump situation is not).
  • A caller asked if there was any way Congress could ‘punish’ the President if he simply doesn’t make a ‘determination’ or initiate a consultation in the coming three weeks. No, there isn’t, said one of the HIAS experts. But, their stable of lawyers is looking at all the legal angles.
  • Until Trump was elected, they, the refugee contractors, were in “expansion mode” opening new offices in new towns. Bringing in more refugee communities now is impossible.
  • There was a lot of discussion about what refugee advocates could do. Top of the list was to tell their congressmen and senators that they want to “welcome” more refugees. Interestingly, Hetfield admitted the president sets the number not Congress, but important to try to get Congress to pressure the president.
  • They asked listeners to set up meetings with their Washington reps in their own districts. But, surprisingly, could not give a caller the names of specific reps to target.
  • Some other action ideas included getting rabbis to sign their letter in support of more refugees. They have 48 states represented but no one from North and South Dakota.
  • They want people to show up to demonstrate on the steps of the Supreme Court when it hears the so-called ‘travel ban’ case on Oct. 10. A caller asked how the timing of the case and the decision announcement (could be May or June) would affect refugee admissions, and the experts on the call could not say.
  • They want people to plan demonstrations and to use social media to get the pro-more-refugees message out. And, they want donations.

U.S. state lays down law: No more refugees!

The U.N.’s massive Dadaab camp in Kenya sends a steady stream of Somali refugees to the United States. More than 200 Somalis have entered the U.S. as refugees since President Trump’s first full day in office on Jan. 21.

Claims U.S. giving ‘preferential’ status to U.N.-backed migrants

WND, by Leo Hohmann, July 24, 2017:

Of all the recent state lawsuits filed against the federal government’s refugee resettlement program, which annually distributes tens of thousands of Third World migrants to more than 300 U.S. cities and towns, the one filed by Tennessee might be the most significant.

Tennessee doesn’t just ask the feds to do a better job of “vetting” refugees or to “consult” more closely with state officials, like the failed lawsuits filed by Alabama and Texas. Tennessee attacks the program at its core, challenging the federal government’s self-proclaimed right to secretly plant foreign nationals of its own choosing – and the choosing of the United Nations – into U.S. cities and towns. Tennessee contends this is a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment and an unconstitutional infringement on state sovereignty.

The 10th Amendment says the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, with all other powers reserved for the states.

Tennessee filed its lawsuit in March, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case in June claiming the state was seeking to stop the influx of refugees as part of a discriminatory policy that treats refugees as inferior to other immigrants.

But the state claims just the opposite. In its 33-page answer, filed July 14, Tennessee claims the only reason it felt compelled to sue the feds was because the feds were demanding that states grant refugees special rights and special favor not available to other immigrants.

An unfunded mandate?

In effect, says the state of Tennessee, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program amounts to an unfunded mandate – as the feds dump refugees on states without providing federal funding for the costs associated with refugee resettlement. Those costs include education, health care and housing, not to mention additional police protection, says the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based nonprofit that provides legal aid in cases that uphold America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the sanctity of life and U.S. sovereignty.

“Elected officials have little say over the process [of refugee resettlement],” writes Ann Corcoran, who has been tracking refugee resettlement for over a decade.

If successful, Corcoran said, Tennessee’s suit would cut the legs out from under the program by attacking its funding. She said other states, like South Dakota and Texas, which have been trying to get control of their budgets with regard to refugees, should be joining Tennessee in this suit.

‘Preferential treatment’ for refugees

The suit’s language, crafted by Thomas More Law Center, is clear:

“Attempting to escape the fact that the refugee resettlement program is funded by the States, defendants erroneously lump refugees in with other lawfully present aliens and then assert that all of them are the responsibility of a State’s Medicaid program. This argument ignores the fact that the federal government has conferred preferentialtreatment on refugees, which leaves them situated more favorably than immigrants admitted through regular means.”

Generally, “[s]elf-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes,” states the U.S. code 8 U.S.C. Section 1601(1), and thus other categories of lawful immigrants to the United States are required to make certain showings as to their financial self-sufficiency as a condition to immigrating.

In fact, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 (a)(4)(A) states: “Any alien who … is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”

The lawsuit continues:

(“[A]liens within the Nation’s borders [should] not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.”) In contrast, the Refugee Resettlement Act imposes no such self-sufficiency requirement and mandates that refugees be deemed eligible for enrollment in Medicaid immediately upon arrival and for a period of up to seven years thereafter.

45 C.F.R. § 400.94(c) (“A State must provide medical assistance under the Medicaid and SCHIP programs to all refugees eligible under its State plans.”); See 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)(2)(A)(i) (establishing seven-year limit).

As such, it is improper to say that refugees are simply another part of the lawfully present immigrant population for which states would otherwise be responsible. To the contrary, refugee populations are an economically disadvantaged population who are admitted to the country without regard to their economic status and who are allowed to immediately access welfare benefits.

If the refugee resettlement program was terminated along with refugees’ favored status under federal welfare laws, it would mean refugees would not be eligible for admission without regard to their economic condition, and they would not be eligible for Medicaid until they had lived in the United States for five years, just like most other types of immigrants, according to the suit.

The government’s “special treatment of refugees may very well serve a legitimate federal goal, but it is just that: a federal goal,” the Tennessee brief states.

The federal government cannot constitutionally force “state governments to absorb the financial burden of implementing a federal … program” while the federal government takes “credit for ‘solving’ problems.”

The state’s argument, concludes that the feds “merely seek to have the federal government absorb the costs that it is currently passing on to states like Tennessee.”

Tennessee’s refugee resettlement program is operated by Catholic Charities, which is one of nine federal contractors the U.S. government pays more than $2,000 for every refugee they resettle in U.S. cities and towns. The resettlements are carried out devoid of any required input from elected city representatives, who answer to local taxpayers.

Since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, more than 3 million refugees have been permanently resettled in the U.S. from dozens of Third World countries. More than 90 percent of refugees entering the U.S. are hand-selected by the United Nations.

Letter to Sec. of State Tillerson is plea to keep Refugee Program at State Department

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran, July 18, 2017:

Some of you asked me what I think of the idea floated by the Trump team to move the US Refugee Admissions Program from the State Department to the Dept. of Homeland Security.  This letter helped me decide!

If these are the supporters for keeping it at the DOS, then I vigorously support moving it!

The letter reported  by the Washington Post here yesterday was spearheaded by none other than Eric Schwartz (the Soros protege who is now heading Refugees Internationalsee here).  It is also signed by eight of the nine federal refugee contractors*** who have over the years established a cozy relationship with the bureaucrats at State. They are counted among the 58 “foreign policy experts.”

In fact there are 40 ‘experts’ and then 18 non-profit open borders activist groups.

Experts include Anne Richard (see our extensive archive here) and Ellen Sauerbrey (don’t miss this 2007 post!).  Both are former Asst. Secretaries of State for Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM). Sauerbrey, from Maryland, ran the refugee program for several years under George W. Bush.

Here is the WaPo on the letter (hat tip: Joanne):

A group of prominent foreign policy experts on Monday called on Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to keep the office responsible for managing refu­gee inflows a part of the State Department instead of moving it to the Department of Homeland Security.

Last month, a leaked memo showed the administration contemplating a relocation of the Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration. Such a change, says a letter signed by 58 former diplomats and national security advisers, would adversely shift the bureau’s focus from humanitarian and policy concerns to solely security issues.

“We are convinced that the elimination of PRM’s assistance functions would have profound and negative implications for the Secretary of State’s capacity to influence policy issues of key concern to the United States,” the letter states. “It would also be ironic, as this is one of the bureaus at State that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support over many years.”

The signatories include former officials who served in Republican and Democratic administrations, as well executives from numerous religious and humanitarian organizations that work with newly arrived refugees.

[….]

Eric Schwartz, the president of Refugees International who helped organize the letter sent to Tillerson, said DHS plays an important role in security screening. But he said it does not focus on foreign policy considerations, such as support for host countries where refugees are awaiting admissions and encouraging other nations to take in more displaced people.  [Why is it our job to nag other countries?—ed]

See the letter by clicking here.

Your homework assignment for today is to write to Trump and tell him you like the idea of breaking up the cozy cabal at the DOS by moving the US Refugee Admissions Program to the Dept.of Homeland Security!

***Federal contractors/middlemen/lobbyists/community organizers paid by you to place refugees in your towns and cities.  Because their income is largely dependent on taxpayer dollars based on the number of refugees admitted to the US, the only way for real reform of how the US admits refugees is to remove the contractors from the process.

Eight of the nine signed the letter to pressure Tillerson.

Noticeably absent as a signatory is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. I’ve noticed that lately they aren’t signing on to these overtly political letters. Maybe parishioners are getting to their priests! Keep it up!

A Replacement of Population is Taking Place in Europe

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, June 14, 2017:

  • People-smugglers bring the migrants to the NGOs’ ships, which then reach Italian seaports. Another legal enquiry has been opened about the mafia’s economic interests in managing the migrants after their arrival.
  • One cannot compare the migrants to the Jews fleeing Nazism. Pope Francis, for example, recently compared the migrants’ centers to Nazi “concentration camps”. Where are the gas chambers, medical “experiments,” crematoria, slave labor, forced marches and firing squads? These comparisons are spread by the media for a precise reason: shutting down the debate.
  • By 2065, it is expected that 14.4 million migrants will arrive. Added to the more than five million immigrants currently in Italy, 37% of the population is expected to be foreigners: more than one out of every three inhabitants.

First, it was the Hungarian route. Then it was the Balkan route. Now Italy is the epicenter of this demographic earthquake, and it has become Europe’s soft underbelly as hundreds of thousands of migrants arrive.

With nearly 10,000 arrivals in one recent three-day period, the number of migrants in 2017 exceeded 60,000 — 48% more than the same period last year, when they were 40,000. Over Easter weekend a record 8,000 migrants were rescued in the Mediterranean and brought to Italy. And that is just the tip of the iceberg: during the summer, the number of arrivals from Libya will only increase.

A wooden boat carrying migrants waits to be escorted to the Topaz Responder vessel, as members of the Migrant Offshore Aid Station make a rescue at sea on November 21, 2016 in Pozzollo, Italy. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

A replacement of population is under way in Italy. But if you open the mainstream newspapers, you barely find these figures. No television station has dedicated any time to what is happening. No criticism is allowed. The invasion is considered a done deal.

In 2016, 176,554 migrants landed in Italy — an eight-fold increase since 2014. In 2015, there were 103,792. In 2014, there were 66,066. In 2013, there were just 22,118. In the last four years, 427,000 migrants reached Italy. In only the first five months of this year, 2017, Italy received 10% of the total number of migrants of the last four years.

There are days when the Italian navy and coast guard rescue 1,700 migrants in 24 hours. The country is exhausted. There are Italian villages where one-tenth of the population is already made up of new migrants. We are talking about small towns of 220 residents and 40 migrants.

One of the major aspects of this demographic revolution is that it is taking place in a country which is dramatically aging. According with a new report from the Italian Office of Statistics, Italy’s population will fall to 53.7 million in half a century — a loss of seven million people. Italy, which has one of the world’s lowest fertility rates, will lose between 600,000 to 800,000 citizens every year. Immigrants will number more than 14 million, about one-fourth of the total population. But in the most pessimistic scenario, the Italian population could drop to 46 million, a loss of 14 million people.

In 2050, a third of Italy’s population will be made up of foreigners, according to a UN report, “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Decline and Aging Populations“, which designs a cultural melting-pot that could explode in cultural and social tensions. The level of arrivals will fall from 300,000 to 270,000 individuals per year by 2065; during the same period, it is expected that 14.4 million people will arrive. Added to the more than five million immigrants currently in Italy, 37% of the population is expected to be foreigners: more than one out of every three inhabitants.

In addition, the humanitarian-aid system has been hit by new scandals. “The investigative hypothesis to be verified is that subjects linked to ISIS act as logistical support to migration flows”, was a warning just delivered in front of the Schengen Committee, to the Italian anti-mafia and counterterrorism prosecutor, Franco Roberti. There are now judges investigating the connection between the migrants’ smugglers in North Africa and the Italian NGOs rescuing them in the Mediterranean. People-smugglers bring the migrants to the NGOs’ ships, which then reach Italian seaports. Another legal enquiry has been opened about the mafia’s economic interests in managing the migrants after their arrival.

Only 2.65 percent of those migrants who arrived in Italy were granted asylum as genuine refugees, according to the United Nations. The other people are apparently not fleeing wars and genocide. Yet, despite all this evidence, one cannot compare the migrants to the Jews fleeing Nazism. Pope Francis, for example, recently compared the migrants’ centers to Nazi “concentration camps“. One wonders where are the gas chambers, medical “experiments,” crematoria, slave labor, forced marches and firing squads. Italian newspapers are now running articles about the “Mediterranean Holocaust“, comparing the migrants dead by trying to reach the southern of Italy to the Jews gassed in Auschwitz. Another journalist, Gad Lerner, to support the migrants, described their condition with the same word coined by the Nazis against the Jews: untermensch, inferior human beings. These comparisons are spread by the media for a precise reason: shutting down the debate.

To understand how shameful these comparisons are, we have to take a look at the cost of every migrant to Italy’s treasury. Immigrants, once registered, receive a monthly income of 900 euros per month (30 euros per day for personal expenses). Another 900 euros go to the Italians who house them. And 600 euros are needed to cover insurance costs. Overall, every immigrant costs to Italy 2,400 euros a month. A policeman earns half of that sum. And a naval volunteer who saves the migrants receives a stipend of 900 euros a month. Were the Nazis so kind with their Jewish untermenschen?

The cost of migrants on Italy’s public finances is already immense and it will destroy the possibility of any economic growth. “The overall impact on the Italian budget for migrant spending is currently quantified at 2.6 billion [euros] for 2015, expected to be 3.3 billion for 2016 and 4.2 for 2017, in a constant scenario”, explains the Ministry of the Economy. If one wants to put this in proportion, these numbers give a clearer idea of how much Italy is spending in this crisis: in 2017, the government is spending 1.9 billion euros for pensions, but 4.2 billion euros for migrants, and 4.5 billion euros for the national housing plan against 4.2 billion euros for migrants.

The Italian cultural establishment is now totally focused on supporting this mass migration. The Italian film nominated at the Academy Awards last year is Fire at Sea, in which the main character is a doctor treating the migrants upon their arrival. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi carried with him 27 DVDs of the film to a session of the European Council. Italy’s commercial television channels produced many television programs about the migrants, such as “Lampedusa“, from the name of the Italian island. 100,000 Italians even took the streets of Milan for a “rally of solidarity” with the migrants. What “solidarity” can there be if half a million people have been rescued by the Italian government and the whole country seems determined to open its doors to all of North Africa?

Winston Churchill was convinced that the Mediterranean was the “soft underbelly” of Hitler’s Europe. It has now become the soft underbelly of Europe’s transformation into Eurabia.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

***

Stunning news: Trump State Department opens the flood gates, refugee admissions will explode in coming weeks

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran on May 27, 2017:

Betraying the voters who elected Donald Trump, the Department of State slipped the news to the contractors on Thursday who then slipped the news to the New York Times just as you were packing up for the beach or getting ready for a family barbecue using the federal government’s favorite holiday weekend trick to bury the news.

Forget everything I said in my post yesterday about Trump’s “average” admissions. If they do as they are now saying they will, Donald Trump will be responsible for one of six highest resettlement years since 9/11.***

Manchester here we come!

Here is the headline (Hat tip: Julia). Emphasis mine:

U.S. Quietly Lifts Limit on Number of Refugees Allowed In

WASHINGTON — Despite repeated efforts by President Trump to curtail refugee resettlements, the State Department this week quietly lifted the department’s restriction on the number of refugees allowed to enter the United States.

The result could be a near doubling of refugees entering the country, from about 830 people a week in the first three weeks of this month to well over 1,500 people per week by next month, according to refugee advocates. Tens of thousands of refugees are waiting to come to the United States.

The State Department’s 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 needed to enter the United States.

In her 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.”

[….]

Refugee groups now predict that entries into the United States could increase so rapidly that the total number of refugees admitted by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, could exceed 70,000.

[….]

Refugee advocates were delighted by the State Department’s decision.

“This is long overdue, but we’re very happy,” said Mark Hetfield, president and chief executive of HIAS, an immigrant aid society.

Continue reading here as the contractors say they are worried for next year.  Oh, sure they are.

Bottomline is that it appears that the REPUBLICAN Congress (never forget they want to keep big business donors happy by providing a steady supply of cheap labor) appropriated gobs of money for refugee resettlement! 

And, the Trump Administration (remember Trump campaigned with talk of a moratorium on refugee resettlement) appears to have no fight left in them on this issue (other issues too!).

***Here are the refugee admissions since 9/11 (those in red exceed Trump’s projected 70,000). Bush had only 2 years in excess of 70,000 and Obama had 3 of his 8 years higher than 70,000.

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

Also see: