×

Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.

  • George W. Bush Institute

    Our Ideas

  • Through our three Impact Centers — Domestic Excellence, Global Leadership, and our Engagement Agenda — we focus on developing leaders, advancing policy, and taking action to solve today’s most pressing challenges.

I'm interested in dates between:
--

Taking Action

Advancing Policy

Developing Leaders

Issues

I have minutes to read today:

Programs & Issues

Taking Action

Advancing Policy

Developing Leaders

Issues

Publication Type
Date
I'm interested in dates between:
--
Reading Time

I have minutes to read today:

The U.S. Should Reconsider Historic Low Refugee Cap

October 10, 2019 5 minute Read by Lindsay Lloyd, Laura Collins
The United States should be crafting welcoming refugee policy. Instead, refugee admittance caps were dramatically reduced in September.

At the George W. Bush Institute, we value the contributions of refugees. We support them through our work on the North Korea Freedom Scholarship, and we are blessed to know and work with colleagues who were refugees. The U.S. welcomed them, and we are all richer because of it. 

That is why it is disheartening to see the White House dramatically reduce caps for U.S. refugee admissions for the new fiscal year. At only 18,000, it continues a pattern of reducing the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. under this administration. 

In 2016, 84,995 refugees were admitted to the United States. The following year, which also marked the first year of the Trump Administration, that number fell to 53,716.  In 2018, just 22,491 refugees were admitted.  These staggeringly low admission rates come when the number of forcibly displaced persons worldwide is the highest on record—70.8 million, of which 25.9 million are considered refugees. 

These numbers are a big concern but not the only one. The Administration did not appropriately engage Congress in its determination to lower the cap. And it gave cities and states more power to decline refugee resettlement, a power that courts denied them when some attempted to block resettlement of Syrian refugees a few years ago. 

It would be wise to remember the definition of a refugee and the obligations of our country to them. 

According to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is someone who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion...” cannot return to her home country. 

For decades, the United States has recognized that refugees are different from the general pool of immigrants.  Leaving aside the current broader debate on immigration, we ought to remember that refugees merit special protection.  

Congress recognized this in the Refugee Act of 1980, which outlines our refugee resettlement program. With this statute, we recognize the unique humanitarian needs of migration. Through resettlement, we commit to helping refugees become economically self-sufficient as quickly as possible. 

The humanitarian case should be enough on its own to craft welcoming refugee policy. But admitting refugees is also economically beneficial. 

Several studies show that refugees punch above their weight economically. Arriving with virtually nothing, they understandably lean on government benefits in their first few years after settling in the U.S. But over time, refugees become net fiscal contributors, paying $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits in their first 20 years in the U.S.

A leaked Health and Human Services report from 2017 supports these findings, with refugees contributing $41 billion in net fiscal benefits to the federal government and $22 billion to state and local governments from 2005 to 2014. 

Additionally, refugees tend to be of prime working age and have high employment rates. Studies have also shown that some groups of refugees routinely move from blue collar or service work to white collar work, reflecting their commitment to learning English and obtaining additional education. 

Resettlement can cause some short-term pain, but as these numbers show, refugee resettlement is a long-term good for the communities receiving them. Cities and states that use this executive order to avoid resettling refugees in their communities are missing an opportunity to bolster their local economies while simultaneously helping people who need it.

The United States has legal and moral obligations toward refugees, and we benefit from their admission. Cutting refugee admissions to such low levels is the sort of bad policy you get when fear drives decision-making. Congress needs to reassert its authority to consult the executive branch on refugee admissions. And the American people should insist that any move to harshly cap or eliminate refugee admissions is a non-starter.


Author

Lindsay Lloyd
Lindsay Lloyd

Lindsay Lloyd is the Director of the Human Freedom Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute, where he manages original research and programmatic efforts to advance freedom and democracy in the world. Lindsay currently leads the Bush Institute’s Freedom in North Korea project, which raises awareness of human rights violations in North Korea, proposes new policy solutions, and engages leaders to help improve the lives of the North Korean people.  Lindsay is also responsible for managing the Freedom Collection, a multimedia archive that documents the stories of nonviolent freedom advocates from around the word. 

Prior to joining the Bush Institute, Lindsay served for 16 years at the International Republican Institute (IRI), most recently as senior advisor for policy.   Previously, he was IRI’s regional director for Europe and co-director of the regional program for Central and Eastern Europe, which was based in Slovakia.  At IRI, Lindsay worked with candidates, elected officials, political parties, and civil society activists to develop lasting democratic institutions.

Before joining IRI, Lindsay worked for several members and the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, as political director for a political action committee, and for Jack Kemp’s 1988 presidential campaign. He graduated from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. 

Full Bio
Laura Collins
Laura Collins

Laura Collins serves as Director, Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute. Collins previously served as the Director of Immigration Policy at the American Action Forum. She has experience in politics, working as a Senior Research Analyst at the Republican National Committee for the 2012 election cycle and in the Texas House of Representatives for the 82nd Legislature. A former practicing attorney, Collins earned a JD from The University of Texas School of Law and a BBA from the University of Oklahoma.

Full Bio