The Cost Of Democrat Demand To Bring More Refugees Into The US

Since Democrats and RINOS refuse to use their brain for more than stuffing for their heads, let’s AGAIN revisit the cost of each refugee who is brought into our country.

A  Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)  report has been completed and released as of November 2015.  Here is what they had to say:

US Refugee Program

“The U.S. government publishes some information on welfare use and money spent to resettle refugees in the United States. Based on that information, this analysis finds that the costs of resettling refugees in the United States are quite high, even without considering all of the costs refugees create. We conservatively estimate that the costs total $64,370 in the first five years for each Middle Eastern refugee. This is 61 times what it costs to care for one Syrian refugee in a neighboring country for a single year or about 12 times the cost of providing for a refugee for five years. It must be kept in mind that refugees are admitted for humanitarian reasons, so the high cost of refugee resettlement is to be expected. But funds are limited and UNHCR is chronically short of money to help the millions of refugees in the world, including those in the Middle East.

The estimated costs reported here are conservative because they only include costs incurred by the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM); costs for resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); public education; and most welfare programs. There are many public expenditures not included in this analysis, such as the cost of local social workers who help refugees sign up for assistance, English language instruction in public schools not covered by ORR, and many means-tested programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, Head Start, and the Additional Child Tax Credit, for which we do not have data. Costs for basic government services such as infrastructure maintenance, law enforcement, and fire protection are also not included. While Middle Eastern refugees in the first five years must pay some taxes to offset a fraction of the costs they create, published data from ORR indicates that more than 90 percent of households have incomes below 130 percent of poverty, which means they will pay virtually no income tax and will make very modest tax contributions of all types.

(The baseline year of this analysis is 2013 as this is the most recent year for which complete budget, refugee admission data, and estimates of refugee welfare use are available in most cases.)

Cost of Providing for Refugees in the Middle East

According to the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), there were a total of 4.29 million registered Syrian refugees as of November 3, 2015, and it appealed for $4.533 billion (about $1,057 per refugee) to care for them.28 Most Syrian refugees are in the neighboring countries of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. While this might seem like a low-level of funding, the UN also reports that the poverty line in Lebanon is $3.84 a day ($1,402 a year) for a family, presumably of three to five individuals.29 Clearly, keeping a family above poverty in Lebanon is much less costly than in the United States, where a family of four is in poverty if its income is below about $24,000 a year. Housing, feeding, and otherwise providing for refugees from Syria or Iraq in neighboring safe countries is dramatically less expensive than resettling them in developed countries such as the United States.

The UNHCR reports a funding gap of $2.5 billion between what it needs to provide for refugees and what it has received from donors. Based on what it costs to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee in the United States for five years, 61 refugees can be helped in the Middle East for one year or 12 refugees can be helped for five years. Alternately, the five-year cost of resettling about 39,000 Syrian refugees in the United States is enough to entirely erase the current UNHCR funding gap. Of course, the material life of a refugee in the United States is almost certainly better than in a city or refugee camp in a nearby country.

Part of Their Concluding Statements

Wealthy countries like the United States that have costly refugee resettlement programs face a choice: They can help a relatively tiny number of refugees who in effect win what might be called the “migration lottery” and are resettled here, or they can devote the limited resources available to helping many more refugees in the region for the same amount of money. If the goal is to help as many people as possible, then assisting Middle Eastern refugees in their home region gives a far greater return on public money.

The benefits they become eligible for which is found on the government website:
1- Unexpired employment authorization, Match Program
2- Unrestricted Social Security Card
3- Lawful permanent resident status after one year from asylum acceptance (Green Card), citizenship after five years
4- Asylum for family
5- Medical Assistance (Mainecare), Medicaid, Medicare
6- Education, cultural orientation, and English language training
7- SSI benefits, Snap, Tanf, Hud Housing (generally for 8 months) and not guaranteed to receive
8- $900 in cash upon arrival, and cash assistance program for 8 months State Department Arrival Program, basic support including housing and meals for 30 days, money grant not loan
9- HHS/ORR benefits through States (reimbursed 100% by Dept. of Health & Human Services)
10-Refugees are required to pay back their initial transportation to US fees without interest

Hidden costs to communities and states:
1- Training facilities for adults
2- Increased personnel in schools capable of handling or speaking other languages
3- Increased need for local hiring of mediators and other professionals in social services
4- loss of jobs, reduction of housing, and other services for citizens
5- Cost of local and state increases in taxes and other revenue to cover costs that begin after federal funds are discontinued.

–00–

Those factors of incoming refugees are only the tip of a very large iceberg. Consider then, the culture shock of the refugees, their disconnect with health, education, and the kind of civilization they came from to be dumped into a location totally foreign to their own lifestyles.

Is it any wonder many ban together to live and survive in an area? Is it any wonder why they cling to a religion that is not a peaceful co-existence with western civilization? Is it any wonder why like “Fiddler On The Roof” they would claim “tradition”? How long before anger builds and boils over? Why are we so shocked when the young ones who are already feeling the disconnect choose to return to that place and practices of their families? How can Americans not understand that the change from eastern culture to western culture is an open wound festering as it glazes over?

If Democrats want to shout for all the world to see that they are doing their “Christian” duty, then they also have to be painted with the brush of “Cruelty and Stupidity” much like “tree huggers” who only see a pinpoint in the overall focus of habitat and humanity providing only stopgap measures which do not address all the parts of the whole. You cannot save a single little widgit without considering all the alternatives and risk the overall destruction of the entire ecosystem in the process.

Americans are generous and open to assisting others but they can’t do that if they have nothing of their own to work with or feel they are being mowed down or supplanted in the process. Human nature is not going to allow self-destruction.   Humans like all creatures have a “flight or fight” gene built into DNA.  

Even the Bible made note of that as do maxims across the ages like “Charity Begins At Home” or “Remove the log from one’s own eye before preaching to others about their wrongs.” Yet liberals and their ilk are determined to destroy the very hand that is raised to give the aid. How long before that hand is withered and drops away. Who is to supply the help then?  Only a few countries and cultures have over the centuries helped their fellow man.  Most have taken a harsher attitude otherwise westerners would not feel the burden of need to “help” save them.

–Uriel–

About Uriel

Retired educator and constitutionalist
Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Cost Of Democrat Demand To Bring More Refugees Into The US

  1. michael p. hershey says:

    Wouldn’t it be better to help these people where they are, instead of bringing them here for help. We’d save a bundle on transportation, and they wouldn’t have to learn English. Just saying. Hershey

  2. Hardnox says:

    Good post albeit frustrating and outrageous. One only needs to look at the organizations administering these resettlement and all the periphery programs. There are billions to be fleeced from the entire program.

    On closer examination you will discover that ALL of these organizations have ties to the democrat party. Shocked you say…

    In addition to this, the religious groups get direct payment from Big G as well. I posted this info on one of Gunny’s pieces recently: My buddy sits on the board of a local Catholic church. He told me they receive $2600 per month PER REFUGEE and they administer 220+ refugees. Then to make matters worse 1/3 goes directly to the diocese, and 1/3 goes directly to the Vatican. That’s a lot of money and it’s only ONE parish. This is no bullshit! My buddy is appalled as are his fellow board members but are abiding by directives from the diocese.

    My buddy spoke with some others from different denominations and he was loathe to learn that this same program is also within Protestant churches along with a big kickback to the United Council of Churches.

    The whole refugee program is a giant rip-off from top to bottom, left to right. It was designed that way.

    It could be safely assumed that much of the silence from Christian groups have been purchased.

    • Uriel says:

      Exactly and it infuriates me that these groups are getting their pound of silver. Presbyterian and Catholic are main ones but certainly not the only ones.