Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Admin Sets Lowest Cap Ever on Admission of Refugees to U.S.

Trump Admin Sets Lowest Cap Ever on Admission of Refugees to U.S.

“down from the 45,000 refugee cap set last year”

The Trump administration is capping the number of refugees which will be allowed into the U.S. at 30,000 in 2019, a record low. Liberal critics will undoubtedly cite this as evidence of xenophobia but that misses the point entirely.

Deirdre Shesgreen and Alan Gomez report at USA Today:

US sets lowest cap ever on admissions of refugees fleeing war, violence and persecution

The Trump administration will dramatically restrict the number of refugees allowed to resettle in the United States next year – permitting no more than 30,000 people fleeing war, violence and persecution across the globe to make a new home in America.

That’s down from the 45,000 refugee cap set last year, which was already the lowest since Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980. And data from the State Department indicates the administration won’t even reach that 45,000. With only two weeks remaining in the 2018 fiscal year, the administration has admitted 20,918 refugees.

In making the announcement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. would also “process” 280,000 asylum seekers attempting to enter the U.S. He did not say the U.S. would accept that many asylum seekers but said the idea they would at least get a shot to claim asylum showed the administration’s “commitment to vulnerable people around the world.”

“These expansive figures continue the United States’ longstanding record as the most generous nation in the world when it comes to protection-based immigration and assistance,” Pompeo said.

Here’s a video of Mike Pompeo making the announcement:

One of the reasons Trump won in 2016 is because many Americans feared Democrats intended to flood the United States with refugees from third world countries.

Conservatives argued that it would be impossible to vet everyone properly and that this increased the possibility of terrorists slipping through the cracks.

Many on the right have also argued that progressives want more refugees not because of sympathy but because they view them as new Democrat voters.

The way that CNN chose to frame the story is rather telling:

Refugee levels are surging worldwide. Trump is slashing the number the US will let in

Monday’s announcement was met with swift condemnation from refugee resettlement organizations.

“The United States is not only abdicating humanitarian leadership and responsibility-sharing in response to the worst global displacement and refugee crisis since World War II, but compromising critical strategic interests and reneging on commitments to allies and vulnerable populations,” the International Rescue Committee said.

Pompeo’s assertion that the US will process up to 310,000 refugees and asylum seekers also makes a false equivalence between the two issues.

Asylum and refugee protections are designed on similar grounds to protect immigrants who are being persecuted. Refugee protections are granted to immigrants who are still abroad, whereas asylum is reserved for immigrants who have already arrived on US soil.

The American people are extremely generous and charitable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with exercising caution when national security is concerned.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Good. We need to assimilate the immigrants we already have.

And it still needs to be lower.

Maybe if we explained this in relevant terms, the leftists could understand?

See, the United States is like a union. When we allow foreigners to flood in, they are scabs stealing jobs and driving down wages.

What do you call people who deny the unity of the USA?

Refugees should be housed as close to their home as possible and returned there as soon as feasible.

The only refugees we should be holding in the US would be in temporary camps fleeing the cartels and repatriated to Mexico as promptly as possible. No one else with refugee-generating problems is so close to us that they sould be on our soil.

    If refugees were housed as close to their home as possible most refugees from Asia would end up in Hawaii. Hawaii is a very small place and already has a severe housing shortage. It would make more sense to house them where there is lots of room, say in Alaska. Somewhere near Olnes Alaska would be good, lots of room there. And knowing they would end up in Olnes might deter many from coming in the first place…

      UnCivilServant in reply to MJHolcomb. | September 19, 2018 at 6:58 pm

      No, there are plenty of places in Asia where they will not be in immediate danger. There is no need to bring them to ANY of our states.

Lost in all this is a simple question: how many legitimate refugees are there that can’t be handled in other ways?

Because that’s the number we should consider.

The best place for a Syrian refugee is Syria. The best place for a Somali refugee is Somalia. It would be better long-term for us (and the Y’urp-peons should join us in this) to keep the refugees in their home countries with basic protection from predators. Let them figure out how to fix their country. Failing that, the U.S. should take only those refugees who are truly in fear of their lives.

To do it any other way is to invite the abuses of the system that the Obama administration practiced (of course). They took Syrian muslim refugees by the thousands but not a single Syrian christian refugee. Why? They would never say, but we all knew why.

So the Trump administration is taking the first step here: how many refugees should we take? It’s not a large number unless there’s a true catastrophe in the world. Help the refugees stay on their own land. It’s a long-term better solution.

Emigration reform to clear the trail of tears and help men, women, and children left behind.

The number should be zero plus the number we can vet thoroughly. Then we should house them as humanly possible to their country of origin. They should never come to America.

JusticeDelivered | September 19, 2018 at 11:40 pm

Since we have an abundance of illegals, their quota should be set low and only those who are really exceptional allowed to come. Since there is clear worldwide evidence that Muslims are not assimilating, we should set the quota to a negative number, representing those we should be deporting. To the degree we allow immigration, we should be taking in people who share our values, and who also are likely to be an asset. Most certainly there are lots of desirable people who need to get out of Europe.

I don’t understand why we have to let refugees/asylum seekers who are safely in Mexico into the USA. They should be returned to Mexico and given a court date for their hearing.