Image 01 Image 03

“Quietly,” the State Department Nearly Doubles Number of Refugees Entering U. S.

“Quietly,” the State Department Nearly Doubles Number of Refugees Entering U. S.

Refugee groups “could begin bringing people to the United States ‘unconstrained by the weekly quotas that were in place’.”

In a move that is sure to go uncelebrated on the regressive left and to leave many Trump supporters scratching their heads, the State Department has lifted the limit on the number of refugees admitted to the U. S.   This change will result in almost twice as many refugees flooding into our country each day.

It is not clear at this time if President Trump is aware of or has approved this change of policy, though it seems highly unlikely he would be unaware of such a substantive change.

The New York Times reports:

Despite repeated efforts by President Trump to curtail refugee resettlements, the State Department this week quietly lifted the department’s restriction on the number of refugees allowed to enter the United States.

The result could be a near doubling of refugees entering the country, from about 830 people a week in the first three weeks of this month to well over 1,500 people per week by next month, according to refugee advocates. Tens of thousands of refugees are waiting to come to the United States.

The State Department’s decision was conveyed in an email on Thursday to the private agencies in countries around the world that help refugees manage the nearly two-year application process needed to enter the United States.

In her email, Jennifer L. Smith, a department official, wrote that the refugee groups could begin bringing people to the United States “unconstrained by the weekly quotas that were in place.”

According to an anonymous State Department source, the decision was made after consultation with the Department of Justice.

The NYT continues:

The department’s quotas on refugee resettlement were largely the result of budget constraints imposed by Congress in a temporary spending measure passed last fall. But when Congress passed a spending bill this month that funded the government for the rest of the fiscal year, the law did not include any restrictions on refugee admissions.

A State Department spokeswoman, speaking on the condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, said the department had consulted the Department of Justice about its refugee quotas and had decided to adjust them.

The numbers are staggering, with the relaxation of refugee admittance rules leading to a potential refugee influx of 20,000 over the president’s proposed cap of 50,000.

Again from the NYT:

While 13,255 refugees were admitted in August, that number plunged to just 2,070 in March. So far during the 2017 fiscal year, 45,732 people have been admitted, just a few thousand short of Mr. Trump’s proposed cap.

Refugee groups now predict that entries into the United States could increase so rapidly that the total number of refugees admitted by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, could exceed 70,000. That is well below the 84,994 refugees admitted in fiscal year 2016, but not by nearly as much as many advocates had feared.

Twitter, of course, is abuzz with the news, including some who wonder if the president knows about this clear violation of his campaign promises regarding refugees.

Via Twitchy:


This might go against just a few of Donald Trump’s promises during the campaign . . . .

At some near point, the president will need to address this matter and explain to Americans how the vetting process for refugees has been corrected, where these refugees are being placed, and what all of this is costing taxpayers.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is just the New York Times trolling Trump supporters. Yawn…

The Friendly Grizzly | May 27, 2017 at 6:18 pm

With departments like State, who needs enemies?

    Maybe that’s why Trump’s proposed budget cuts the Dept. of State’s funding by…what?…twenty percent or something?

      Rick in reply to snopercod. | May 27, 2017 at 7:35 pm

      I confess confusion: Is the proposal for a 20% reduction in the proposed increase of funding, or is it a 20% reduction of the current level of funding?

Remember back in the day when say, the National Enquirer would run a story about Sasquatch and Aliens…. well… thats’ now the WaPo and the NYTimes. If either are the source of a story.. they are just like the old sensationalist stories. Pathetic, click-baiting, rumor-mills…. full of innuendo and maybe, could-be! And worse, they are PARTISAN hacks with a agenda.

    A study was done some time ago that found the National Enquirer’s front page to historically be more accurate than the NY Times’.

    Given what we have discovered about the long-time rabid leftist agenda of the NY Times, and the untold number of lies told in its pages to further that agenda, the study turns out to be no surprise.

    The cat is out of the bag, and there is no turning back. The fun for us is happily ignoring the likes of the NY Times and watching the rag turn into the best GOP vote generator than obama and clinton.

They can’t mean for it to be all that “quiet” if they make sure the Times knows about it.

This story about lifting limits on some refugees is old. Is MSM recycling things to drum up drama or just now catching up because: Russia— Katica (@GOPPollAnalyst) May 27, 2017

Sounds like a distraction from Obama’s spying.

What say you, Fuzzy?

    Moi? I say that if this story is accurate, it’s not an old story as the tweet suggests. According to the NYT, the change occurred this week. Now, take that with as many grains of salt as you reserve for NYT reporting.

    As to it distracting from the Obama NSA illegal spying on Americans: it obviously didn’t distract me since I wrote the LI article to which you link. 🙂

CAIR forced by Obama’s elective wars.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | May 27, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    … and a compelling democratic interest to replace Chosen and Planned Americans.

Sally Yates Mark II?

buckeyeminuteman | May 27, 2017 at 10:18 pm

If true, I want an explanation and my vote back

VaGentleman | May 28, 2017 at 1:40 am

We are talking about legal immigration, not illegal immigration.

IMO, Trump’s position is the EO pausing immigration from the hi risk countries that is now working it’s way through the courts. Until that is resolved, doesn’t he have to follow the existing (pre EO) rules?

The article says that the restoration of funding levels in the budget agreement is the cause of the increase. If Trump’s EO is found constitutional, funding levels become moot and his restrictions will apply. If it’s unconstitutional, congress will have to change the law. Either way, for now it’s out of his hands.

In short, I don’t see anything new here. With the stay of the EO, things went back to the status quo ante but with more $ from the budget deal. Unless, of course, you’re an #NT with TDS, in which case it’s a crisis you can use to prove whatever.

And if these refugees are Christians and Jews fleeing Islamic terror, WELCOME TO AMERICA.

The best thing about Progressives is that their attacks are so damn obvious. Originality and subtlety are not major components of Progressive strategy, though their enthusiasm for deception and deceit is certainly well developed.

The task is to attack a guy who just racked up 63 million votes. The votes he didn’t get aren’t the target; most of them won’t vote for him in future, either. (Some will, but hey, no plan is perfect.) The thing to attack is his support from those who did vote for him. So how to do it, when all you control is some courts, some fifth columnists in the legislature and the executive, and the Press? The usual way—you lie. Constantly, about everything. Make up a story and pound it, day after day. The Never Trumpers will help; they’ll chime in, repeating and elaborating whatever they hear. Truth doesn’t matter, and nobody in the press will even pretend to verify any of the claims. Get Republican voters thinking they’ve been betrayed yet again, and far too many of them will put on a most gratifying show of weeping and gnashing of teeth. They always do.

As for me, when I read something sourced from the New York Times, by now my Pavlovian response is to pay no attention. The chances are better than excellent that it’s just another lie.