18,000?!? No, Mr. President, No.

In the midst of a lot of important news in recent days, I hope this didn’t slip by: President Trump has decided no more than 18,000 refugees will be allowed to enter the U.S. in fiscal year 2020.

While the U.N. estimates around 25 million refugees in the world, we say no more than 18,000 can come here. I am ashamed and angry. If this figure, the lowest cap in the history of the program, does not at least give us pause, we should not call ourselves pro-life.

So what are the concerns?

Safety: If we let in refugees, we may be letting in terrorists unaware.

Money: Refugees cost too much to take care of. And, really, we can’t afford to help everyone, right?

Triage: The overwhelming situation on our southern border needs to be addressed before we can consider other issues.

I want to hear and acknowledge these concerns, but find them woefully inadequate rationale for this decision.

If you disagree, help me understand by commenting below.

If you agree, join me in taking action.

What can we do?

Get informed: Learn how refugees are vetted. Read this book or skim this article.

Go to this Facebook page to restore your hope.

Buy this sign for your yard. Maybe get two and find a sympathetic neighbor. It can be scary to stand alone!

Advocate: In April of this year a bill was submitted in both the U.S. House and the Senate called the Grace Act. It requires the annual cap on refugee admittance to the U.S. be no lower than 95,000, the average cap since 1980 when Congress passed the Refugee Act. Find your Representative here and your Senators here. Email them requesting support for the Grace Act.

Finally, share this all over. Congress is allowed to comment on the President’s number. Perhaps there’s still time for change.

(Visited 157 times, 1 visits today)

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

13 Responses to 18,000?!? No, Mr. President, No.

  1. Fred Baker

    I think that instead of giving oxygen to detractors of President Trump that instead he should be given credit for his foreign policy reducing the humanitarian crisis created by President Obama’s dithering and Democrat reticence to fund our US military. Which would we choose? A world with far fewer refugees and less need? Or a world of humanitarian disaster needing huge American response? I too favor helping those in need, as do you; but I far prefer a President who lifts millions out of need and refugee trauma.
    I think that the reporting that I’ve quoted below, including links to the full articles, support my plea to avoid making the great policy accomplishments harder for President Trump.
    Fred Baker
    October 2019

    WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday signed a proclamation suspending entry of immigrants who will not be covered by health insurance within 30 days of entering the United States or do not have the means to pay for their healthcare costs themselves.

    https://www.bing.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/5995608/trump-immigrants-health-care/amp/

    Curb ‘Mexico Crisis’

    As part of its argument, the government spoke of a “humanitarian and security crisis” along its southern border with Mexico, claiming that it “imposes an extraordinary burden on the US immigration system”.

    The US Department of State in a statement on Thursday said that “at the core of the Trump administration’s foreign policy is a commitment to make decisions based on reality, not wishes, and to drive optimal outcomes based on concrete facts”.
    The US said that it was making progress in “attacking problems at the source” where they originate, and that it “has worked hard to resolve conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan, strengthen economies and governance in Central American countries, and support the legitimate government in Venezuela against (President Nicolas) Maduro’s tyranny”.

    https://www.india.com/news/world/only-18000-refugees-to-be-allowed-in-us-from-2020-to-curb-mexico-crisis-3785431/

  2. Stan R Higgins

    Making a broad brush statement like, “we should not call ourselves pro-life” if someone disagrees with this analysis is shortsighted. I too, have demonstrated a lifetime of caring for both people of diversity and disability. There is a much bigger question here about the capacity and sustainability of seemingly unlimited care for every tragic crisis across the globe.
    Are there huge numbers of people that are being mistreated, neglected and abused around the world? Absolutely. Do they need compassionate care? Absolutely. Can the U.S. meet all those needs? Not all of them.
    Unfortunately, a combination of circumstances have created an even greater crisis in caring for refugees. The abuses of freedom that the U.S. affords have been leveraged by the terrorist pockets around the world. Though these are a small percentage of individuals, there is increasing need to stop the spread of those who would bring tragedy and disaster upon many others.
    The ability to provide healthcare, education, housing and jobs for everyone that desires to find safety is quickly reaching a breaking point. Inspite of the fact that the U.S. has great wealth, there is also tremendous mismanagement within our government systems that have exacerbated these problems. We have a growing homeless crisis that no one seems to be able to find solutions to right now.
    I have personally benefited from the cultural diversity around me. My wife and I recently invited 9 of our immediate neighbors into our home for a BBQ. At that gathering were people from Latin, Filipino, Vietnamese, East Indian and Pakistani backgrounds. We enjoyed a wonderful evening of friendship together. I am by no means against immigration. We are all immigrants. However, there must be a global approach to addressing the crises around the world that are creating the need for millions of people to want to flee there homeland.

    • shanedar

      Hey Stan,
      Thank you for reading Muslim Connect and taking time to share your wise thoughts. I appreciate it.

      Couple thoughts in reply:
      1. I love that you had 9 neighbors over and that included such a variety of people! Good for you guys.
      2. You said, “Making a broad brush statement like, “we should not call ourselves pro-life” if someone disagrees with this analysis is shortsighted.” I was careful to say if the number does not give us pause. And I’ll stand by that, I’m saying people should agree with me, but that if we see this limit on refugees, we should at least wonder about it. I think pro-life people should care about people beyond the womb (which I assume is usually true), including refugees.
      3. You said, “Can the U.S. meet all those needs? Not all of them.” Totally agree. I don’t think the email advocated for that. Did you get the feel?
      4. You said, “Inspite of the fact that the U.S. has great wealth, there is also tremendous mismanagement within our government systems that have exacerbated these problems.” Totally agree with this.

      Thank you again, Stan.

  3. shanedar

    Hey Fred,
    Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I’m honored that you read Muslim Connect.

    Here are some thoughts:
    1. You say, “I think that instead of giving oxygen to detractors of President Trump he should be given credit for his foreign policy. . . .” I’m not sure I get what you’re saying here, but surely it isn’t, “Don’t criticize the President, he’s doing some things right.” And I don’t see how this is an either-or situation.

    2. You say, “Which would we choose? A world with far fewer refugees and less need? Or a world of humanitarian disaster needing huge American response?” Clearly, I would choose the former. But again, does pursuit of a “world with far fewer refugees and less need” necessarily mean we curtail our response to current need? If so, I guess I don’t understand why.

    3. “I too favor helping those in need, as do you” Amen!

    4. “but I far prefer a President who lifts millions out of need and refugee trauma.” I’m with you in that, but could use some documentation as to how you think he’s doing that. And at risk of beating the drum again, why does that necesarily mean admitting only 18000 refugees in 2020. What’s the connection?

    5. Reference #1 (https://www.bing.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/5995608/trump-immigrants-health-care/amp/) says immigrants who can’t prove they’re insurable will not be admitted. It also says this order does not apply to refugees or asylum seekers. So, what are you saying with this?

    6. Reference #2
    This article says President Trump is making progress in areas that have generated refugees. Great. I’m glad for that. However, I still don’t see how this affects the number of refugees we admit. Is it, “Hey, we’re doing “a” so we get a pass on “b.” I don’t think it’s due to there being a limited pot of money, so we choose to spend it getting the Northern Triangle countries to sign migration-limiting agreements instead of admitting refugees to the US. Is that the logic?

    That article also says, “The State Department also referred to the factors weighing down on the nation’s immigration system and noted the importance of “prioritizing the humanitarian protection cases” of those already in the country.” I think this is saying, we’re not spending money (and personnel) on admitting refugees so that we can instead use it to respond to the crisis on the southern border. Is that a right interpretation of that comment? And if so, is it actually true? I need to learn more in this area, but suspect these two issues are less connected than is implied here.

    Thank you again, Fred for weighing in. I know you have miles to log on your bike, so reply if you can, but feel no pressure to. I do value your thoughts and opinions.

    One last thing: What would you think about reinstating a Reagon-era provision that allowed individuals and groups to sponsor incoming refugees? eg: A church could underwrite the cost for a refugee family to move to and get established in the US.

  4. Emelia

    The facts are clear and very easy to find. Refugees are thoroughly vetted and do not pose a security threat. Refugees build the economy and are more likely to start businesses than native born Americans. If anyone denies these facts, it must simply be that they do not want to accept them, for whatever reason. And I agree with you – 18,000 is pitifully few. I am ashamed of us.

    • Fred Baker

      Thoughtful. I’ll get back. Soon
      Fred

    • shanedar

      Hey Emelia,

      Thank you for reading Muslim Connect and taking time to write in. I appreciate it. I especially like this, “Refugees build the economy and are more likely to start businesses than native born Americans.”

      If you could provide some documentation for that, I’d love it.

  5. We are now giving states and cities and towns the right to say yes or no to having large numbers of refugees in their areas. The issue is not just allowing refugees to enter the USA, but many who call themselves refugees are just poor people looking for a pay raise. We need to help refugees in more ways than just giving them welfare and an open door or to count numbers as a badge of success. We have an unstable country right now with tens of thousands of homeless and needles and excrement that is sullying our cities that we can’t manage, nor give them adequate health care. Should outsiders be given free and complete health care (yes) when we have people who are living in tents because they can’t afford to pay medical bills? I say, yes, let’s have more refugees vetted and admitted if we include our dirt poor in the same pool as the refugees. Otherwise, we call non-Americans “destitute” but we call our dirt poor camping in streets as just “a shame.” Two peoples, shame/honor people and “what a shame” down-and-out Americans need help.

    • shanedar

      Hey Don! I’m honored that you read Muslim Connect. You’ve probably talked to 34 times as many Muslims as I have!

      I’m not sure I totally follow you in your comment, but I agree that we should care about homeless people. I think, perhaps as you do, that this is a both/and situation, not an either/or.

      Thank you again.

  6. Roger Smith

    Shane,
    To claim that endorsement of a certain number of refugees to be admitted into our country is an indicator of being pro-life or not is outrageous in the extreme. Being pro-life is well understood to mean being opposed to abortion. Sixty million (and counting) babies slaughtered in this country since Roe v. Wade is so far beyond wicked that comparison to the number of refugees is shameful. What has happened to the Shane Bennett I used to know?
    Consider this: President Trump is the most pro-life president we have had since Roe v. Wade. The number of conservative Federal judges he has appointed brings hope that soon Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

    • shanedar

      Roger,
      You are my friend and have been for so many years.

      You asked, “What has happened to the Shane Bennett I used to know?” For the entire time you have known me, the burden God has given me has been for those who have the least access to the Gospel. I have never said that’s the only thing God cares about, nor has it been the only thing I have cared about.

      At the same time, I disagree with a mindset that says as long as President Trump opposes abortion, anything else he says or does is ok. I doubt you really believe that, Roger. I also think as Americans we have the liberty to question our leaders and to actively disagree with them. That’s why I called for advocacy for the GRACE Act.

      Without doubt God cares for unborn babies. I feel equally convinced that he cares for refugees. For me “pro-life” means we stand for justice for all people everywhere, not just the unborn. Do you agree with that?

  7. Glenn Rodriguez, Phd

    I enjoyed your articles so much I forwarded it to my brother and brother-in-law. One has worked extensively with asylees and undocumented in getting educated. Amongst his greatest accomplishment is seeing these youngsters become solutions; not problems i.e., finish high school, technical degrees, start small businesses, collage degrees, buy homes, etc.

    He want’s more!

    • shanedar

      Glenn! You rock. Thank you for reading my stuff and for sharing it! I appreciate that. I feel just a bit of your brother’s joy in seeing “problems” become for real solutions. Much success to him!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.