The Good Samaritan found the beaten man, helped him to an
Inn and paid for his care out of his own pocket. He did not run to Roman soldiers to demand
that they do this. Charity is personal. Mandated charity is Socialism.
Atlantic
writer proposes reform: Let’s see if the wealthy would adopt
refugee families! By Ann Corcoran, 9/7/18.
“….why not give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is?” (Reihan Salam).
But, hey, okay let’s go with the idea that Trump will gain more politically by lowering refugee admissions than he will lose!
At the same time, some of the most vocal champions of refugee resettlement are affluent cosmopolitans who reside in well-off communities, and who might see devoting some portion of their incomes and their daily lives to assisting refugee immigrants as a source of pride and fulfillment. The Stephen Millers of the world might deride such women and men as romantic cosmopolitans, and perhaps they have a point. But why not give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is?
If broad-minded Americans were to come forward en masse to sponsor refugees under these demanding conditions, it would demonstrate the seriousness of their support for welcoming newcomers who’ve endured profound torments while giving the likes of Trump and Miller an implicit rebuke. If they didn’t, we’d at least know where we stand.
Calling all wealthy humanitarians! Let’s see how many “broad-minded” wealthy people will come forward to sponsor refugee families for more than a year, pay for all their needs, find them health care, apartments and jobs, teach them English, get the kids in school, fill out all their government paperwork, etc. Of course he doesn’t mean permanently, but for more than a year until they are on their feet.
At the outset, I don’t know
where to begin with Reihan Salam’s reform proposal at The Atlantic yesterday because I don’t believe the
writer is a serious longtime student of the US Refugee Admissions Program, but
I like one of his proposals!
And, I am happy to see that he is opening a
discussion of reform of our present flawed system.
The Opinion piece
is entitled: A Better Way to Absorb Refugees and subtitled: Affluent
city dwellers are some of the most vocal champions of refugee admission—and
they’re in a position to assist.
This I know—-the refugee
industry is likely going nuts over any serious reform idea being proposed that
would break-up their cushy and financially lucrative arrangement with the
federal government.
Again, author Salam
makes so many points I don’t know which to address first so we will take them
in the order he gives them.
Here are a few snips leading
up to what I think is his key point. Emphasis is mine.
Without the consent of
Congress, President
Trump can only do so much to curb immigrant admissions overall. But he does
have expansive authority over refugee admissions, and he is using it to implement at
least part of his restrictionist agenda.
Reihan Salam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reihan_Salam
Under the Refugee Act of
1980, the president, in consultation with Congress, is charged with setting a
refugee ceiling, a hard limit on total refugee admissions, which can be
adjusted in tune with changing foreign-policy priorities.
Then here (below) I agree
there was/is bipartisan support in Congress, but not because the program was
“an invaluable foreign-policy tool!” It is because it brings in cheap
legal labor for the Chamber of Commerce and big business on the political
right, and it brings in reliable future Democrat voters on the left. (The foreign-policy
tool argument is a recent refugee industry talking point they have sold to the
likes of the Heritage Foundation.)
Salam continues: Before Trump’s singular presidential campaign,
widespread skepticism about the wisdom of admitting refugees in large numbers
had little effect on policy makers, as leading members of both major parties
shared a commitment to the refugee resettlement program, often because they saw
refugee admissions as an invaluable foreign-policy tool.
That elite bipartisan consensus
is now a thing of the past. Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top policy advisers,
has pressed for even steeper reductions in the refugee ceiling for the coming
fiscal year, to the consternation of senior diplomats and military officials.
We’ll soon know if Miller will get his way. I would be surprised if he did not.
For one, Trump
apparently believes that lowering the refugee ceiling is good politics, and
there is reason to believe he’s right.
Unlike almost every other
tool of immigration policy at the president’s disposal, lowering the refugee
ceiling is virtually backlash-proof.
I guess Salam does not read
RRW or he would know how vigorously the nine federal contractors are
attempting to whip up the backlash.
Salam then goes to the
subject of “public charge” which is an old concept that this administration is
hopefully bringing back and that is the idea that immigrants to America should
not become dependent on welfare. It is a story for another day.
I realize now why I’m having
such trouble with Salam’s op-ed—-because he is all over the map and now we jump
back to the idea that there is not much of a public constituency for ever
larger refugee admission numbers. But he does give us an idea for those
of you working on Congressional campaigns! On the campaign trail try to pin down the Democrats on the issue of
refugees! Salam suggests they are avoiding expressing support for more
refugees!
….Refugee immigrants
aren’t an especially large or vocal political constituency. Recent arrivals are
chiefly concerned with gaining a foothold in American life, while those who
arrived in the country decades ago from one country aren’t necessarily
motivated by a burning desire to welcome refugees from others. Though there are many activists who will
sharply criticize the Trump administration for admitting so few refugees, and though
there is majority support for admitting refugees in the abstract, don’t expect
Democratic congressional candidates in competitive races to be among them. The
recent arrest of Omar Ameen, an Iraqi refugee who stands accused of concealing
that he was a murderer who had sworn allegiance to the Islamic State, is a discomfiting
reminder that the vetting of humanitarian migrants has never been
foolproof. A Trump White House consumed with scandal would love nothing
more than to make refugee admissions a central issue, which is why Democrats
are unlikely to take the bait.
Author Salam then tells us
that the military wants especially Iraqi refugees admitted as a kind of bait to
get them to help us there (we told you about it here). Why the heck are we still there offering one-way tickets to America to
Iraqis anyway?
Next he throws out the ‘help them where they live’ argument.
Yes, good.
And, finally we get to the nub
of it….Reform the refugee program by setting up private
sponsorship which is something worth seriously looking at, but not as an add-on
to the present flawed system.
(I’m breaking up these final
paragraphs because I find them almost unreadable as written!)
Salam continues: Does this
mean that there is no place for humanitarian immigration to the U.S.?
Not at all. There will always be compassionate
Americans who long to shelter families from strife-torn corners of the world,
and there should be avenues open to them. However, our current approach to
refugee resettlement does a poor job of leveraging this desire to do good. For decades, the State Department has worked
in concert with a set of voluntary agencies, or “volags,” that are provided
with a modest amount of federal funding to help refugees establish themselves
on American soil.
Because most recent refugees
to the U.S. have modest skills, the process of adjustment can be exceptionally
difficult. Even when they do secure employment relatively quickly, their market
incomes tend to be quite low, which is why they often depend on safety-net
benefits, refundable tax credits, and other transfers designed to keep
Americans out of poverty.
Other countries, including,
most prominently, Canada, allow for private sponsorship, in which individuals,
families, and community groups pledge their own resources to help refugees
navigate their new lives for up to a year. The Niskanen Center, a centrist think tank,
has proposed a private sponsorship system for the U.S. as a means of boosting
refugee resettlement,
and though the idea hasn’t gained much ground under Trump, a modified version
of it could have bipartisan appeal. [The great flaw in
the Libertarian Niskanen Center’s proposal is that it is designed to get MORE
refugees in to the US as it would be in addition to the present
system.—ed]
Trump aide Stephen Miller (right) is
considered the chief architect of the President’s policies regarding refugees.
Restrictionist critics of the
status quo often point to the fact that the volags [I call them federal contractors—ed] often resettle refugees in struggling communities, where
costs are low and federal funds go further—yet where local public services are
often stretched thin, and the long-term labor market prospects of refugees
aren’t as bright as they might be in more prosperous communities.
Imagine an overhauled
Refugee Act that allows for private sponsorship. The executive branch could set one
ceiling for refugees who’d be provided for under the existing refugee
resettlement program (for example, the 15,000 that’s been reported in the press
as the Trump administration’s target for the coming fiscal year) and another
(say, an additional 45,000) for refugees who’d be cared for by carefully vetted
U.S. families who volunteer to provide for their basic needs for an extended
period—I’d recommend a much longer period than a single year, as under the
Canadian system, as expecting refugees to achieve self-sufficiency in such a
short time strikes me as unrealistic and, just as importantly, the commitment
involved shouldn’t be entered into lightly.
Private sponsors should be
subject to oversight, as it would be outrageous to allow Americans to take
advantage of refugee immigrants, and outcomes for the refugees they sponsor
should be carefully monitored, so as to help identify best practices for
researchers and future sponsors.
Read the whole piece here.
Okay, let’s do it! Let’s
assume Reihan Salam has a serious reform proposal for consideration by
Congress.
But we do it as the only
system for admitting refugees and we get rid of the contractor middlemen listed
below!
Readers, send me your
guesses as to how many wealthy city-dwelling Americans will raise their hands
to sponsor impoverished Somalis, Iraqis and Congolese (others!) for a year or
more in their neighborhoods!
(Reihan Salam had above
suggested 45,000 could be privately sponsored!)
These below are the nine
federal refugee resettlement contractors.
You might be sick of seeing
this list almost every day, but a friend once told me that people need to see something
seven times before it completely sinks in, so it seems to me that 70, or even
700 isn’t too much! And, besides I have new readers every day.
The present US Refugee
Admissions Program will never be reformed if the system of paying the
contractors by the head stays in place and the contractors are permitted to act
as Leftwing political agitation groups, community organizers and lobbyists paid
on our dime!
And, to add insult to
injury they pretend it is all about ‘humanitarianism.’
The number in parenthesis is
the percentage of their income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the
refugees into your towns and cities and get them signed up for their services (aka welfare)! And, get them registered to vote
eventually!
From my most recent
accounting, here. However, please see that Nayla
Rush at the Center for Immigration Studies has done an update of their income!
Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) (secular)(93%)
International Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular) (66.5%)
US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (secular) (98%)
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment