Refugee Policy Needs Reform

The Quote Below: More Misinformation from the Media

“Mr. Trump is considering another extreme cut in the number of refugees legally allowed into the United States. Already, his administration lowered the cap for 2018 by more than half, to 45,000 – the smallest number in the four-decade history of our modern refugee program. . . . Destroying our bipartisan tradition of refugee resettlement goes against the American value of extending a lifeline to the world’s most vulnerable. And it’s economic malpractice: Refugees return more in taxes than they receive in benefits. . . .” – Trump Huge Mistake on Refugees, Arianna Beregaunt and Anthony Blinken, The New York Times, 9/22/18 [Link]

Fact Check of Quote: The proposed cutback of the refugee program is a reasonable idea. As it now exists, the program is bringing us people who don’t fit the traditional legal definition of a refugee, i.e., someone with a “well founded” personal fear of persecution based on religion, politics, ethnicity, etc. Often today, people often qualify as refugees who are members of a group which may face a generalized discrimination. Personal persecution need not be proved.

Another issue that needs to be resolved is the belief that the United States and other Western countries should be the first options for refugee resettlement. The problem with this notion is that it is often much more cost effective, per amount of money spent, to resettle refugees in countries neighboring their homelands. They also they can often fit in better culturally, and when conditions in their homelands improve it is easier for them to return.

Something that definitely needs to be examined and corrected is the role U.S. charity agencies play in resettlement. As the situation stands now, these agencies—heavily subsidized by taxpayers—have a powerful monetary incentive to push for resettlement. Often they make money while leaving the tab for refugees’ social services to local communities.

The claim that refugees pay today more in taxes than they receive in benefits is false for a number of reasons. One is that studies making this claim don’t consider the full costs of resettlement. Another is that the studies are based on the flow of refugees who arrived more than 20 years ago in the nineties. They tended to be better educated than recent refugees. To illustrate, in 1995 36 percent of refugees did not have a high school degree (compared with 20 percent of natives. In 2015, 51 percent lack a high school degree (compared with 13 percent of natives).

Education levels are a good indicator of earning ability, and people with low or relatively low education typically don’t contribute more than they take. This is particularly the case with refugees, who receive public assistance at a high rate. Unlike other immigrants, they are allowed full access to welfare benefits as soon as they arrive. In the words of Jason Richwine, an analyst writing for the Center for Immigration Studies: “Given their low education levels and high rates of welfare use, today’s refugees cannot be net fiscal contributors by any plausible analysis.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here