The Quote Below: More Misinformation the Media
On Friday, Texas Gov Greg Abbott announced that his state would not be accepting any refugees in the coming fiscal year. He is the first governor to take such a position, under the terms of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in September that requires state and local jurisdictions to consent to refugee resettlement programs. . . . [R]efugees are legal immigrants who are extensively screened and vetted in their home countries. . . . Abbott’s refusal to accept refugees is bad for business and the state economy. . . .
True, under the terms of Trump’s executive order Abbott is allowed to refuse refugee resettlement. However, that order is legally unsound. It violates the Refugee Act of 1980, which says that states and localities are to be consulted regarding refugee placement. In crafting the statute, Congress did not require consent from localities, let alone allow for vetoes. . . .
Gov. Abbott’s decision to reject refugees is cruel and short-sighted. It is a stain on the hospitality and welcoming nature of the Lone Star State. – Texas Gov. Abbott Wrong to Slam Door on Refugees, The Hill, Raul Reyes, 1/14/20 [Link]
Fact Check of Above Quote: The claim that the “consult” clause of the 1980 Refugee Act gives states and localities no way to opt out of resettlement is a strange legal argument. If they have no choice in the matter, why should the federal government bother to consult with them? In any case, current resettlement policy clearly violates another provision of the Act, the one which requires that the federal government reimburse states and localities for the cost of resettlement.
This is not happening. Lots of federal money, however, is going into the pockets of “VOLAGS,” the religious and secular “charities” that carry out resettlement. They don’t practice old fashioned charity, which involves using their own money to help others. No, they do their “charity” with taxpayers’ money. Indeed most of their overall funding comes from the federal government. After doing resettlement, they leave it to the states and localities to pick the tab for providing welfare and other public benefits to refugees. The state of Tennessee has sued to stop this imposition of an unfunded mandate.
Contrary to the article above, refugees are not an economic asset. They are selected for their alleged humanitarian needs, not for skills and abilities. Unlike most immigrants, they are entitled to full welfare benefits as soon as they settle in the U.S.
Also, the vetting refugees receive to screen out criminals and threats to U.S. security is not necessarily effective. The reason is that the home countries of refugees may not have adequate records of their histories. This is particularly the case when war and civil unrest have scattered all records to the wind. When refugees from War-torn Syria were coming to the U.S., the FBI admitted that vetting them adequately was impossible.
The refugee program is clearly broken, and Gov. Abbott made the right decision to get out of it. Reforms are necessary, such as that proposed by President Trump in his speech to the UN General Assembly on September 19, 2017. He stated that “For the cost of resettling one refugee in the U.S., we can assist more than 10 in their home region.” With refuges resettled in nearby countries, they can return to their homelands when conditions there improve. That would be a humane and cost-effective approach. The only people who would see a downside to it would be the VOLAGS and the journalists who support their tax-paid “compassion.”