Trump’s 18,000 Refugee Cap Sends Immigration Boosters into Tailspin
Trump’s 18,000 Refugee Cap Sends Immigration Boosters into Tailspin BYfor Progressives for Immigration Reform
hat tip / The Burning Platform
No sooner had the State Department announced that it would cut the refugee cap to 18,000 annually than the immigration accelerationists began their predictable rant. Among the accusations was that the new 18,000 cap– down from 30,000 last year and from 110,000 during Obama’s final year – was President Trump’s latest step to decimate the refugee program. The hysteria continued. President Trump was acting outside his constitutional authority, immorally, shamefully and with reckless disregard for the tradition that the 1980 Refugee Act established.
But the U.S. Constitution has no provision that mandates the acceptance of refugees, and what may have appeared sound legislation to President Jimmy Carter back in 1980 when the U.S. struggled with the deadly Southeast Asian War’s consequences doesn’t necessarily hold true today.
While the immigration lobby and the American Immigration Lawyers Association oppose the administration’s lower cap, and instead press for higher refugee resettlement levels, another view is that the White House is bringing the program in line with the nation’s need – or lack thereof – for more immigration. Critics of the lower refugee cap neglect to mention that a record number of about 350,000 illegal border crossers requested refugee protection via asylum petitions. Detractors’ demands that the U.S. should do more for global refugees are uninformed. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the U.S. is its biggest contributor. For 2017 and 2018, the U.S. pledged $134 million.
A tally of winners and losers in the current refugee program is telling. The winners are the relatively few refugees who are resettled annually. On the other hand, between 2004 and 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services spent $96 billion on their welfare benefits, with state and local governments, many with limited budgets, contributing more money in the form of federally unfunded mandates. The losers are U.S. taxpayers.