Ten reason there should be a moratorium on the
UN/US Refugee Admissions Program for FY2017. by Ann Corcoran, 5/19/16
Readers, this
(below) is what I am sending
to the US State Department today. If you have followed RRW for years you will
recognize this as a modification of the first testimony I sent in 2012.
Frankly, nothing much has changed!
Some things
have gotten worse. Only one issue I raised then has been improved—they get the ORR
Annual Reports to Congress
done more
quickly. They still aren’t getting them to Congress when the law says
they should, but almost.
One issue that is much worse is the prospect
that an Islamic terrorist could slip into the refugee flow to America with the
huge increase in the number of refugees coming from Syria, Iraq and Somalia.
However, for
the first time in the almost 9 years I’ve written this blog, there is a little
window of hope that the Refugee Admissions Program could be dramatically
altered if President Donald Trump does half of what he says he will do (and
Congress does its job of reviewing the entire program).
If Hillary
Clinton or Bernie Sanders are elected President, this program will continue on
steroids. There will be no reform.
Here are ten points slightly modified, but
essentially the same as I sent to the State Department 4 years ago.
Ten Reasons there should
be no refugees resettled in the US in FY2017—instead a moratorium should be put in place until the
program is reformed (or abolished), the economy completely recovers, and we are
assured that security screening will protect us. Why?
1)
Refugees
take jobs that low-skilled Americans and teens need. The program was never meant to be
simply a way to import impoverished people to the US and place them on an
already overtaxed welfare system. Those that do find work are taking jobs that
American citizens need.
2) The program has
become a cash cow for various ‘religious’ organizations and other contractors
who very often appear to care more about the next group of refugees coming in
(and the cash that comes with each one) than the group they resettled only a
few months earlier. Stories of refugees suffering throughout the US are
rampant.
Indeed, there is no
accountability for the billions of tax payer dollars going to the program.
Short of a complete halt to resettlement-by-contractor, taxpayers should be
protected by legally requiring financial audits of contractors and
subcontractors on an annual basis.
3) Terrorist
organizations have threatened to use the program that still
clearly has many failings in the security screening system. Indeed
consideration should be given to halting the resettlement of Muslims
altogether. Also, the UN should have no role in choosing refugees for the
US. There is no reason we can’t make the decision about who we want to
‘welcome’ to America without UN meddling.
4)
The public is not confident that screenings for potential
terrorists (#3) or the incidences of other types of fraudulent entry are being properly
and thoroughly investigated and stopped. When fraud is
uncovered—either fraud to enter the country or illegal activity once the
refugee has been resettled—punishment should be immediate deportation.
5) Congress
has not specifically disallowed the use of the refugee program for other
purposes of the US Government, especially using certain refugee
populations to address other foreign policy objectives—Uzbeks, Kosovars,
Meshketians, Syrians, Iraqis, Somalis, and Bhutanese (Nepalese) people come to
mind.
6)
The State Department and the ORR have so far failed to adequately determine and report (and
track once the refugee has been admitted) the myriad communicable and
costly-to-treat diseases entering the country with the refugee
population. Refugees suffering from serious (and expensive) mental health
issues should be screened-out.
7) There is no
process for alerting communities to the impending arrival of refugees
that includes reports from the federal government (with local input) about the
social and economic impact a certain new group of refugees will have on a city
or town. Such a report should be presented to the public through public
hearings and the local government must have an opportunity to say ‘no.’
8) The
federal government should not be acting as head-hunter for corporations (like
the meatpackers!). Congress needs to investigate and specifically disallow any connection
between this program and big businesses looking for cheap and captive labor.
9) If
Congress and the President determine we must have some refugee program, a mechanism
should be established that would help a refugee go home if he or she is unhappy
or simply can’t make it in America.
10) If during a
moratorium, the Congress and the President decide that a refugee program of
some sort is needed, the VOLAG system should be completely abolished and the program should
be run by state agencies with accountability to the public through their state
legislatures. The system
as presently constituted is surely unconstitutional. (One of many benefits of turning the program
over to a state agency is to break up the government/contractor employee
revolving door that is being demonstrated now at both the State Department and
ORR.)
For these reasons and more, the Refugee
admissions program should be placed on hold and a serious effort made by
Congress to either scrap the whole thing or reform it during the moratorium. My recommendation for 2017 is to stop the program now.
The Office of
the President/US State Department could indeed ask for Congressional hearings
to review the Refugee Act of 1980-–more
than three decades is time enough to see its failings and determine if
reauthorization is feasible or if a whole new law needs to be written.
No comments:
Post a Comment