Worldwide Refugee Population Hits All-Time High, U.S. Intake Reaches All-Time Low

Mike Pompeo celebrates World Refugee Day by bragging about America's "leadership" on the issue, but the numbers tell a different story


||| Cheriss May/Sipa USA/Newscom
Cheriss May/Sipa USA/Newscom

Today is World Refugee Day, which is when the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) releases its grim annual Global Trends report about people driven from their homes, and the world's politicians issue grave-sounding statements about all the work they're doing to ameliorate the crisis.

So what did the UNHCR find for 2017? A record number of displaced people: 68.5 million. And a record number of refugees leaving their home country: 25.4 million, or 2.9 million more than 2016, making it "the biggest increase UNHCR has seen in a single year." There are currently "44,500 people being displaced each day, or a person becoming displaced every two seconds." The main generators of refugees are, in order, the wars in Syria, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, and South Sudan.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commemorated the occasion with a statement asserting that "the United States will continue to be a world leader in providing humanitarian assistance and working to forge political solutions to the underlying conflicts that drive displacement," and that "the United States provides more humanitarian assistance than any other single country worldwide, including to refugees." That leadership, however, is not reflected in the number of refugees the U.S. now takes in.

From October 1, 2017 to June 15 of this year, America has brought in 15,383 refugees. That puts the country on pace to accept just under 22,000 for this fiscal year, which would easily be the lowest number since the Refugee Act of 1980. (In Fiscal Year 2002, which began right after the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration took in 27,131). Measured across presidencies, Bush took in an average of 48,000 refugees per year, Barack Obama 70,000, Ronald Reagan 82,000, Bill Clinton 89,000, Jimmy Carter 94,000, and George H.W. Bush 119,000.

We are contracting admissions right as the world is dramatically expanding people seeking shelter outside their home countries. The global population of refugees (minus the 5.3 million registered with the U.N. Relief and Work Agency for Palestinians in the Near East), was stable between 2008–2012, at between 10.4 million and 10.6 million, but since then we've seen this:

2013: 11.7 million

2014: 14.4 million

2015: 16.1 million

2016: 17.2 million

2017: 20.1 million

The last time the world experienced such a sharp spike in refugees, the Carter and Reagan administrations took in about 1 out of every 70 global refugees. The Trump administration is on pace right now to accept 1 out of 900.

Pompeo in his statement nodded both to those prior eras of generosity, and Donald Trump's new era of America First stinginess: "Since 1975, the United States has accepted more than 3.3 million refugees for permanent resettlement—more than any other country in the world. The United States will continue to prioritize the admission of the most vulnerable refugees while upholding the safety and security of the American people."

Or as the president himself said Monday, "The United States will not be a migrant camp, and it will not be a refugee holding facility. Won't be. You look at what's happening in Europe, you look at what's happening in other places; we can't allow that to happen to the United States. Not on my watch."

Relevant video from the archives:

NEXT: In Gerrymandering Ruling, Supreme Court Refuses to Settle Partisan Squabbling Over Fairness

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Will The Reason Foundation be holding a Mission Accomplished party to celebrate the increased number of “refugees” your policies incentivize?

    Congrats guys. You did it.

  2. The article doesn’t seem 100% clear on the distinction between refugees and displaced people.

    1. I’m also loathe to compare refugees in the Carter/Reagan/HW Bush era to our current era. Overthrow a figurehead and start a proxy war and you should take in some refugees but getting just shy of passively involved when a duly elected leader turns into a murderous dictator… why would a libertarian feel obligated to shelter people from the consequences of their actions?

    2. The article doesn’t seem 100% clear on the distinction between refugees and displaced people.

      Yes. Reason hammered it over-and-over that merely fleeing one’s country in the face of war, persecution, natural disaster etc. does not make one a refugee.It is a special narrow status that can only be credentialed by the UN after much vetting. Asylum-seekers, for example, are NOT refugees.

  3. Hey, how about a little credit for the fact that Trump isn’t creating American refugees to burden our neighbors. Except maybe those actors who fled to Canada back in November 2016.

    1. Our neighbors wouldn’t put up with it.

      They may for a moment for show as long as the numbers are small.

    2. I think Matt Damon fled to Australia (who don’t generally admit refugees).

      1. Is it racist that celebs always want to flee to really, really white countries?

        1. Enh. The vast majority of these celebs are English speakers. The vast majority of English speaking countries are predominately white.

          Though, yes, of course it’s funny to mock them with the same standards they use for everyone else.

          1. Belize is English speaking, as is Guyana. Much of the crime-ridden, high murder rate Caribbean is English speaking: Trinidad, St. Kitts, Barbados, Jamaica, etc. Of course, if any American celebrities sought “refuge” there, it would likely be on a private island, equipped with private yacht and seaplane, well inoculated from the crime and violence that mark the daily lives of many of their residents.

      2. I’m sure Matt Damon likes brown people. To mow his lawn, carry his bags, clean his pool, etc..

  4. Syria, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, and South Sudan.

    There are 195 countries on the planet. What are the other 189 doing about the refugee crisis?

    1. Just what are you implying here? That because Syria is closer to Europe than it is to the US, Syrian refugees should all go to Europe? That’s absurd. The United States has a moral obligation to lead the world in refugee intake. It’s the right thing to do from both a libertarian and humanitarian perspective.

      1. The United States has a moral obligation to lead the world in refugee intake.

        Not. At. All.

        1. Agree AZ gun owner. The US has no obligation whatsoever to take in a single immigrant. We need to adopt the same rules for immigration that Poland, Australia, and New Zealand – if you cannot demonstrate that you will be a positive asset to the country, you don’t get in. Period.

      2. I agree OBL. So to show everyone here how woke you are, sponsor as many refugees as possible at your own expense. Document everything, including how you will sleep on the floor while giving the refugees your bed, and sofa. Anything less is just cis male white privilege, am I right?

        Then we can get everyone else here to follow your example.

    2. They’re taking 899 out of 900 refugees.

      1. Citation?

        1. Citation?

          The 899 that want to give up the mistakes their homeland(‘s culture) and live the good life, they keep. The 1 that they can’t figure out if they’re a terrorist, just radicalized, or completely benign they put on an island and negotiate a deal with the US to take them.

  5. Alternative headline: “The US Takes in More Refugees Than the Rest of the World”

    I don’t know what country you open borders fanatics live in, but the reality is really inconvenient to your hyperbole

    1. The reality is that the US is currently accepted 1 in 900 refugees. Your alternative headline is a strange suggestion.

      1. It’s not at all.

        I understand the complaint that is being made: the US needs to take in more refugees with the increase in the refugee population. But, it is untrue to argue that the US has reduced the number of refugees that it has accepted.…..ple-grows/

        This is Welch’s source.

        From the report:

        “The U.S. has resettled more refugees than any other country ? about 3 million since 1980. Generally, in years when more people around the globe are displaced by conflict, violence or persecution in their countries, the number of refugees resettled by the U.S. has increased. But in the last few years, the number of refugees annually resettled by the U.S. has not consistently grown in step with a worldwide refugee population that has expanded nearly 50% since 2013, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and U.S. State Department data.”

        1. “After holding fairly steady between 2012 and 2015, the annual number of refugees resettled in the U.S. jumped to 97,000 in 2016, according to UNHCR data. In part, this was the Obama administration’s response to a dramatic increase in the global number of displaced people due to conflicts in Syria, Iraq and sub-Saharan Africa. Even with the 2016 increase, however, the number of refugees resettled in the U.S. during the latter years under President Barack Obama was lower than in previous times of high refugee resettlement in the U.S. and did not keep pace with the world’s refugee population. Annual admissions from 2014 onward would have had to exceed well over 100,000 refugees to emulate past American responses to refugee surges, such as in the early 1990s.”

          1. Which part of that says our current rate is not 1 in 900, as the post above says?

            Which part of that says we are taking more refugees than Germany, which registered over 186,000 asylum seekers in 2017?

            1. The 1 out of 900 requires context. One of the reason “Refugees” are streaming into Germany is because they put in place a border policy that didn’t turn back anyone. This created a “refugee crisis” of people walking to Germany (not so easy to walk to the US from Syria) who weren’t refugees, but “economic migrants”. However, they all get lumped into the “refugee” category by loose standards in statistical analysis.

              Six in 10 migrants arriving in Europe are economic migrants with no right to asylum, one of the EU’s most senior officials has disclosed.

              Frans Timmermans, the first vice president of the European Commission, said that the majority of those coming to the EU are not fleeing war or persecution.

              Many are Tunisians or Moroccans who were joining the migrant trail through Turkey, he said, and they must be deported if the public is to consent to aiding asylum seekers.

            2. Their “asylum seekers” are a Muslim invasion.

              Europe is finally starting to figure out that Islam doesn’t want to assimilate into other cultures, Islam wants to replace other cultures.

              We need to stop it now before it gets to the epidemic levels of violence that Europe is experiencing.

            3. If we only took in 1 out of 900 refugees, and the number of refugees we took was 3 million, then the total number of refugees since 1980 is around 2.7 billion.

              No way in hell there have been 2.7 billion refugees in the last 37 years.

          2. So, the title is correct, but the article makes it seem as if the US is no longer the country which takes in the largest raw number of refugees. What would be incorrect about stating that the US takes in more refugees than the rest of the world other than it does not conform with a narrative?

            And maybe the decline in the number of refugees admitted would have increased if the previous administration did not end the federal government’s long-term contract with religious non-profits who resettle refugees, because they won’t provide abortions.

            How will woketarians square their love for taxpayer funded abortion with their new interest for refugees? Do you reinstate those contracts with religious groups that provide the bulk of refugee resettlement or do you hold true to your culture war?

            1. The US does not take in the largest raw number of refugees.

              1. From the exact same article:

                “Worldwide, the U.S. has formally resettled more refugees than any other country, according to UNHCR.”

                1. Seriously, have hit rock bottom that hard that instead of harassing Julie Borowski online you come here and just spout stupid shit?

                2. *Pew Report, I should say, not article*

                3. Neither this article, nor any of the comments, have given actual numbers for 2017 or 2018 comparing the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. and the number admitted by other countries, such as Germany. Are those numbers available? Neither totals over the last 30 years nor figures from 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, give a picture of what is happening now.

      2. Citation?

        1. You could try reading the post.

          1. I did, and the citation didn’t support the claim. Care to try again?

      3. – “”The reality is that the US is currently accepted 1 in 900 refugees.”

        Why is a fixed-ratio of a global population the appropriate measure for refugee intake, rather than absolute numbers?

        It makes no sense that the us would take equal %s of refugees from, say, “The Congo” (where millions have fled from), vs., say, Honduras and El Salvador, where hundreds of thousands have.

        Obviously, who we take in and why is hugely dependent on the context and what makes sense for refugees themselves.

        It makes no sense to expect refugees from halfway around the planet to end up in the US in proportional #s as those in our own hemisphere/continent. They go where they *can be most effectively resettled/provided asylum* The details of which are entirely particular to each refugee population.

        Pretending that refugee intake is some statistic which should adhere to some even, steady-state percentage over decades despite the various causes/contexts of refugees is statistically-obtuse at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

        1. eg.

          just as an example of how absurd this pretense about #s is…

          the reason GHW Bush saw the huge numbers he did? Because of the collapse of the soviet union.

          You do not have a collapse of the soviet union every year on a constant basis.

          Just because we took in 100s of 1000s annually during the early 1990s (or late 1970s, because of our abandonment of vietnam), does not mean we therefore have to keep matching those numbers by dragging people in from every far-flung regional conflict on earth to ensure we keep providing some mythical “Fair Share”

          And even when we do – expecting those #s to be constant is absurd. We took large numbers (16k) in from Congo in 2016; if that number falls by 50% in 2017, is it because “Racism!”…. or is it – (gasp) – the numbers fluctuate annually because refugees aren’t coming in steady streams, but bursts, based on conflict status and/or ability to find more-convenient resettlement?

          I have no problem w/ argument that “we should do more”; perhaps we should. However, I think claims that we’re doing “too little” based on around top-line numbers that have no reason to be the same every year simply makes people stupider about the topic.

          If we should be doing more for Hondurans or Syrians, or (insert whomever), then make the case for that group of needy-people; simply going, “durrr the number went down, thass bad” helps no one.

          1. Dammit, how dare you try to apply reason to any discussion of this problem! Go away, you’re not wanted here!

        2. “Why is a fixed-ratio of a global population the appropriate measure for refugee intake, rather than absolute numbers?”

          Absolute numbers don’t always tell the whole story. Globally, there are fewer than 200 nations in total. If it is true that the US is only taking in 1 in 900 refugees and also true that we take in more refugees than any other nation (in absolute numbers), that would imply that the whole world is only taking in around 22% of refugees,

          What is happening to the other 78% of refugees?

          1. “Absolute numbers don’t always tell the whole story. “

            As per argument above: absolute numbers tell almost none of the story: because intake is so reliant on *conditions*. #s rise and fall for reasons outside of intent or policy.

            one can make argument = “we should take more than we do currently” – sure.

            And one can say “X amount of intake is too low, because of [issues w/ specific refugee group w/ few other viable options]” But just doing that based on an abstracted set of top-line #s is idiotic.

            ” If it is true that the US is only taking in 1 in 900 refugees and also true that we take in more refugees than any other nation (in absolute numbers), that would imply that the whole world is only taking in around 22% of refugees,”

            This sort of turns the false-presumption matt makes on its head; if the US has some proportional obligation based on ‘wealth’ (or some other factor), it implies that other large/wealthy large countries should be (or are) doing same.

            But they don’t adhere to any proportional contribution either. For same reasons as above: because it depends on where/when refugees emerge from, and why, and whether there are other places they might be better resettled.

            e.g. Germany sucked in more than their ‘fair share’ of Syrians; but why no Hondurans? Why no Congolese refugees in Japan? b/c obviously it makes no sense. But then they turn and pretend it does for the US.

        3. For some reason, the writers and staff here feel invested in cramming as many impoverished, unskilled, amd uneducated foreigners into the US as possible. And will manufacture even the most flimsy and bizarre premises to advance that agenda.

          I never realized that being libertarian meant importing millions of people into our system at a rate that will virtually ensure a large percentage of them will be long term welfare recipients. Increasing the size and scope of government, and progressive power and voting base accordingly.

    2. I dunno. Over 4 million have fled Venezuela. A quarter million came to the US. That leaves about 3.75 million going to other countries.

  6. Fear not, the UN Council on Human Rights will be stepping up to the plate to deal with this ‘crisis’.

    Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mexico, Pakistan and Rwanda will take care of this.

    1. That would be a good joke if it weren’t actually true.

  7. Worldwide Refugee Population Hits All-Time High, U.S. Intake Reaches All-Time Low

    Which of these is the good news and which is the bad?

  8. I’m pretty sure we took in less from 1776 -1847, at the bare minimum. Probably also from 1861-1945 as well

  9. I still do not understand if Reason is advocating some form of human rights internationalism or isolationism. They seem all over the map and the articles here seem more consistent with what someone like human rights internationalist Samantha Power would advocate.

    Bomb Syria, bad. Not fixing the rest of the worlds problems, also bad. Me, confused.

    1. Welch loves NATO and the EU. What part of that is consistent with a restrained foreign policy or “isolationism”?

      There is a reason why articles from this publication are re-tweeted by Bill Kristol. You’re not going to see Kristol re-tweeting Rand Paul

      1. I’m all for associations that benefit the US, and have the further effect of promoting international peace and stability. Which is good for trade, amd helps keep us out of international conflicts. Although the EU is poorly executed socialistic central planning that is likely doomed to failure.

  10. I have it on pretty good authority that you don’t have to live like a refugee.

    1. That’s petty.

      1. Stop, you’re breakin’ my heart!

  11. Worldwide Refugee Population Hits All-Time High, U.S. Intake Reaches All-Time Low

    Refugees should go to neighboring countries and countries that are culturally compatible. The US is neither.

    1. Couldn’t have said it better, Mark22.

  12. whats left out of the article is the actual number of refugees still being allowed into the U.S. That is a pertinent number when discussing such issues.

    1. That number will probably not advance Matt’s premise that we need more welfare dependent foreigners here, so he didn’t mention it.

  13. Matt…so?

    I’m supposed to care that we don’t take in a lot of refugees…why?

    I don’t want the US to solve all the world’s problems.

    Feels weird that I have to fight “libertarians” over that.

    1. it is strange that a libertarian magazine that proclaims the U.S. should keep out of other countries business but then wants The U.S. to get involved with their refugees.

      1. He wants to nation build.

        Just he wants to do it here with those communities.

        Apparently, expense is not a concern for libertarians. That we tried to rebuild Iraq inside of Iraq instead of here was the only reason that war was bad, per Reason logic.

    2. Reason is not a libertarian publication. It may have been one, but it is certainly not one now. Reason is a progressive publication with a new “libertarianish” positions like opposition to gun control.

  14. Until we acknowledge that intelligence is not evenly distributed among the races, and most failed countries have a population of genetically unintelligent people, we are consigned to importing poverty and disorder.

    Latin American mestizos have an average IQ of 85-90. They’re only slightly more intelligent than blacks, and as such, can’t support themselves. Importing them is importing socialism. It’s that simple.

    1. Fuck this guy

      1. “I’m an individualist that views people based upon immutable characteristics, because I’m a piece of shit”

      2. Truth hurt?

        1. The truth is that IQ tests are about as “scientific” as any statistical analysis. And are as predictive about future success as astrology. And people who engage in racial politics tend to be the dumbest people in society.

          If you want to believe in bad statistical analysis and use that to predict the future then go become a global warming nutcase.

          1. Open border people, this is an actual “bigot” here, where is your righteous indignation that you direct at people who don’t think we are living in 1938 Germany?

            1. Are you pissed he is making your side look bad? Dude, these are your allies. Does his post really need a response?

              1. The guy who calls the US immigration policy akin to Nazi Germany thinks a racist is equivalent to someone who thinks open borders is a fanciful idea.

                Open border people might be taken more seriously if they didn’t just rely on hyperbole and ignorance as their strength

                1. Nope, I never said what you claim. Stop lying about that.

                  1. Maybe you didn’t. All I remember is a lot of hyperbolic comments directed at anyone that doesn’t support the notion that anything less than open borders is latent bigotry.

                    Sorry, if I confused you with some other commentator

            2. It’s OBL’s second handle. Seriously.

              1. How do you know this, Paul?

                1. Are you contending that anyone who would take issue with open borders must inherently be a bigot? Or just that this guy is probably just a bigot and there’s nothing to suggest it’s a parody?

                  1. You can’t refute the fact that the Bell Curve is real. Why do you think IQ as measured at age 14 is nearly perfectly correlated with life success? Coming from the “party of science,” ignoring science because you don’t like where it leads is pretty funny.

                    1. ^this is AmSoc, everyone.

                      its not some right-wing retard. Its a left-wing retard LARPing as one.

                      that is all. you can return to your regularly scheduled ‘tardery, now.

                    2. “You can’t refute the fact that the Bell Curve is real. Why do you think IQ as measured at age 14 is nearly perfectly correlated with life success?”

                      You’re right, and as an example of how meaningless that is when dealing with individuals, I have no idea concerning your cultural or racial background, but it’s obvious that you are at the low-tail of the curve regardless.

          2. Actually Just Say’n, IQ tests are the best predictor of future life success we have yet found.

            They accurately predict your future education level, income, chances of being a criminal, divorce rates, and on and on. They predict all this more accurately than your socioeconomic status at birth. In other words if you want to know ONE THING about a person to guess if they will be a success in life, getting their IQ is the best possible fact to know.

            That is hard, undisputed science.

            And the fact is that different ethnicities DO score wildly differently. And their life outcomes match up perfectly with the IQ scores on average. Now some people like to push that IQ is entirely environmental in nature, unfortunately science has shown that in individuals IQ is 50-80% heritable. Usually it comes in at around 60-70% in most studies.

            So you tell me how a group is not just an amalgamation of individuals that all individually have 50-80% genetically predetermined IQ scores, which correlate to life outcomes, and I will accept that the source of immigrants won’t change anything…

            Nature is not fair to everybody on an individual basis or on a group basis. Some people are fat, some skinny. Some smart, some dumb. That’s just nature being a bitch.

      3. Well, judging from the name I assume it’s someone that just wants to pose as a ‘racist right winger’ but, as Square=Circle pointed out in another thread, Poe’s Law does cut both ways so…yeah. Fuck this guy.

      4. NOOOOO, he is nasty! Not even with yours.

    2. 14% of Venezuelans over the age of 25 in the US have advanced degrees, as compared to 8% of the US population.

      1. This is why selective immigration policies are AWESOME. We can artificially improve the chances of success of any and all immigrant groups by only skimming the cream.

        An example: Average income of Indian immigrants is something like 100K a year. They’re almost 100% of above average intelligence in terms of IQ. If we just randomly selected Indians to move here their average income would probably be considerably below the average in the USA, because most Indians have virtually no education. By only letting in the best and brightest we see nothing but a net benefit, whereas letting in all comers we would likely see a net drag on native born citizens who have to subsidize the low incomes of the uneducated ones, as we do with all low income native born people.

        Common sense, it’s a bitch!

    3. Get the fuck out of here with that racist bullshit. Fuck off.

    4. Take that shit back to storm front and join the circle-jerk there.

  15. U.S. Intake Reaches All-Time Low”

    thats like when Obama decreased the deficit by more than any other president by first raising the deficit higher than his decrease first. The numbers in the article are meaningless without the actual total numbers, not some percentile number of an unknown number. Of course that was on purpose for the political slant of the article

  16. So they can’t keep their country from being a shithole and they walk across multiple countries without asking for asylum, so they can get to the U.S. and be taken care of. How about I be allowed a little liberty from being responsible for the rest of the world’s downtrodden? The omnipotent moral busybodies at the federal (and state) government are already “solving” way to many problems and undermining my freedom, and spending, taxing, and borrowing us to death in the process.

    1. Exactly, when early immigration happened in the USA there wasn’t a social welfare net to catch you; you either made it or you didn’t but you weren’t a load to the everyday tax payer. Now all illegals are a load on the system that is already busting at the seams; unlimited immigration doesn’t make sense any more. Merit based legal immigration does.

      1. You can have either a generous welfare state or unlimited immigration. You cannot have both.

  17. The US should accept all Syrian refugees since our garbage foreign policy is a major reason why there is a refugee crisis to begin with. The US should take in more refugees, especially those who face genocide (but, that will require woketarians to give priority to icky Christians and Yazidi in the Middle East), but emotive bullshit pretending like the US does not accept the bulk of the world’s population, historically and today, is just stupid.

    If you want to cosplay like your living in 1938 Germany then don’t engage in grown-up conversations.

  18. Out of curiosity, Matt, do you have any observations for why it’s the United States’ best interests to accept more refugees–or is it all about the pity party in your mind?

    1. In all seriousness, if there’s one best way to typify the SJW/progressive mindset, perhaps it’s with the idea that cost/benefit analyses and observations about freedom and rights are tertiary concerns. The one thing that really matters to them is identifying the biggest, most pathetic victim, and anything and everything that gets in the way of helping the biggest victim should be, at best, ignored.

      I know there are arguments for why bringing refugees to our country is in our best interests. Maybe you should make them!

      I wonder if you’ve heard the arguments about how we’re hurting the cause of libertarianism by turning everything into a pity party.

      1. Ken, you’re probably the most calm and measure poster here. That being said, I highly doubt that Matt has the stones to engage in a discussion with the commentariat, even you, to defend his premise.

        Which is a shame, because that would be a great discussion.

    2. Out of curiosity, Matt, do you have any observations for why it’s the United States’ best interests to accept more refugees–or is it all about the pity party in your mind?

      The US should accept refugees on behalf of any one of the recipient nations at a 1:1 rate with a single proviso; the refugee in the foreign country will be given the same free speech, self-defense, and personal privacy rights the refugee in the US will/would receive. If they don’t want to grant the refugees those rights, then it’s obvious that they view them as a threat or some manner of second class citizen and we have no obligation to treat them differently or play quid-pro-quo with them about it. I’m sure Turkey and Greece will be thrilled to give their refugees free speech, more liberal access to guns, and a right to privacy.

  19. Worldwide Refugee Population Hits All-Time High, U.S. Intake Reaches All-Time Low

    Why should we accept any?

    1. Because the longer swim will get them in great shape. Why walk to Germany when you can swim to the US?

      1. Also, gotta balance out those ACA tiers. -Reason

  20. Count me in, Reason. I really didn’t have a strong opinion on this matter before, but now I want a wall. Even Milton Friedman was against open borders with a welfare state.

    1. Wrong solution. Tear down the welfare state instead.

      1. From your lips to some-diety’s ears.

      2. I am fully in support of tearing down the welfare state, but we have decades of work to do before we have a prayer of doing that …. but the wall would help for now.

    2. False.

      Milton Friedman was pro immigration. What he said was that, with the welfare state in place, illegal immigration is preferable to legal immigration.

      1. Your link discusses Milton’s position and then has someone else explain what he really meant? How does that change what he said? And why do you think he preferred illegal immigration?

      2. What he said was that, with the welfare state in place, illegal immigration is preferable to legal immigration.

        So, then, don’t legalize immigrants and prioritize the dismantling of the welfare state? Done.

      3. The fact anyone would argue over such a simple and obvious thing as ‘illegal immigration is preferable to legal immigration with a welfare state’ is clearly not at the intelligence level required to read Friedman.

        It’s an obvious statement, because if illegal immigrants could gain access to the welfare state it would instantly collapse and/or bankrupt everyone in the nation overnight.

        You shouldn’t even need an economics class to get this concept. The open question that I don’t even care about the answer to is if illegal immigration is also preferable since it shores up social security so that we can fund citizen welfare on the backs of non-citizen workers. If you want to talk about cowardice and inhuman treatment of people, how about you talk about that.

        1. Of course, in many states, including California, Illegals DO get access to the welfare state. So, Milton Friedman’s point is no longer relevant. That ship sailed.

      4. This doesn’t hold water. Children still go to public schools, receive public funds, and public paid for emergency care. Legal immigrants are far better and are a net positive. Illegals are not.

  21. We’ve dumbed down the definition of “refugee” to mean any kind of displaced person. At the end of WWII there were truly millions of refugees forced to leave their homes at gunpoint. Now international aid organizations are like MAAD – they’ve deteriorated into scams looking for an excuse to still exist and becoming ever more shrill.

  22. The refugee issue is always expressed in terms of how many we should (or should not) take in. Why do I never hear what the plan is for returning them to their country of origin once the crisis has passed?

    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution no country has been more thoroughly destroyed by war than Germany & Japan were during WWII. Yet no significant number of Germans or Japanese were allowed to leave during or after that I know of. Why is it that they were required to stay and help rebuild but the Syrians, et al, aren’t?

    After being defeated during Operation Desert Storm Saddam wanted to slaughter the Kurds. The Kurds didn’t leave but they weren’t slaughtered—why not? Because we created a safe-haven in place to include a no-fly zone. (I was there in northern Iraq in ’91 with the 431st Civil Affairs Company as part of Operation Provide Comfort).

    According to one population growth model the population of Africa is projected to increase from 1.3-billion today to 4-billion by 2100. If America & Europe were to each take 5%, 200-million each, they would quite literally be destroyed, no exaggeration, and the remaining 36-billion in Africa wouldn’t even notice they were missing. “Just say no.”

    1. Edit: 4th paragraph: 3.6-billion

    2. According to one population growth model the population of Africa is projected to increase from 1.3-billion today to 4-billion by 2100.

      I would dispute the increase estimate since rarely, if ever, are those even close.

      Otherwise, though, it’s a curious thought experiment to note that taking the most liberty minded people from their countries helps cement totalitarian regimes. The flip side being that those who have fled those situations can advocate on behalf of going to war with their home countries to implement regime change…at…home…


      (And yes, it’s equally if not more plausible they would simply integrate into the U.S. and be done with it but…I note many formerly foreign ‘activists’ who are ‘refugees’ are indeed interested in getting the U.S. involved in their home nations up to and including military intervention.)

    3. You never heard of war brides? Or do women not count.

      1. I said no *significant* number left. The war-brides were a few tens-of-thousands. I think I’ve read that a few German POWs were allowed to remain in the U.S. None of that compares to what’s been happening in the U.K. & Europe with the growth of their Muslim population or the ~50-million people in the U.S. who are foreign-born, as many of 22.8-million of them here illegally, according to a Yale study by a Dr. Mohammad Fazel Zarandi.

        I served in four Islamic visions of what can only be describe as Hell on Earth, I kid you not. The West is collectively *insane* to allow these people in and in large numbers. No, not all Muslims are quote-unquote bad although even the so-called moderates have beliefs that range from deeply disturbing to downright *hair-raising*. I’m telling you, and I’m quite serious, this is *not* going to end well for Western Civilization.

    4. When we fix all of our own internal problems and poverty then we can start allowing unlimited refugees and illegals in, until then ship them back. No internment camps, ship them back immediately. They can fix their own country. We do not have infinite resources. If we did I would be all for it, but that’s simply not the case.

  23. When did we stop counting illegal immigrants as refugees?

    1. Illegal Aliens is a more accurate term.

    2. 1 – “Illegal aliens (economic migrants)”
      2 – “asylum seekers”
      3 – “refugees”

      …are all different categories

      Asylum seekers and Refugees in particular fall under specific US and International law, and there are very specific guidelines that apply to whether people can qualify as either.

      Typically, “refugees” apply @ US embassies somewhere overseas, but not their home country; their country must be on a list of places that the US declares eligible for refugee status

      Asylum seekers typically show up at the border and demand it because of X specific reasons. (due to persecution because of Race, Religion, Membership in a particular social group, Political opinion)

      The US sets quotas/limits for # of people who can qualify under refugee programs each year. It is guided by specific US legislation as well as UN agreements.

      In the case of Asylum seekers, … AFAIK *(and i could be wrong) we basically take anyone who claims it, conditional on their documenting and substantiating their claim, and expected to return to home country if/when conditions permit. I believe its guided by UN treaty

  24. Europe is committing suicide, let’s join them. Have read that here before.

  25. another reason . com open borders anarchist..

    you people wont be happy until the US is erased..

    21 trillion in debt and this site continues to push anarchy

  26. Fuck yeah!

    We don’t need to be the dumping ground for the world.

    And the truth of these numbers, if they’re like most of the others I have seen previously, is that a MASSIVE proportion of these people are just bailing their poor countries as economic migrants hoping to get into richer countries. I can’t really blame somebody for not wanting to live in a shit hole country… But that doesn’t mean I think we should take them all in either. a 21st century post industrial economy just doesn’t have a lot of call for people who aren’t even literate in their native language, let alone English.

    The fact is that you can’t ALWAYS be nice if you want to take care of yourself. If I went wandering around downtown Seattle for a few hours I GUARANTEE I would be hit up for cash so many times from bums that even if I only gave each of them a couple bucks I could give away an entire days income. I COULD do that, and be the super nicest guy EVAR… But then I’d become destitute myself. So you have to have limits. We’ve let in enough low education people in recent decades. You can see the effect in the suppression of wages for low skill jobs. We don’t need more, unless we want to officially slip into being a 2nd world country. I don’t want to do that personally.

    1. These countries and people need to fix their own problems.

      1. Yup. Fixing shitty countries is the only real and permanent solution. Europe, America, and Japan simply can’t absorb billions of impoverished people. It is not possible. However the whole world could get their shit together and bring themselves up to at least Chinese levels of economic success. People don’t really starve to death there anymore, even if they’re not fabulously wealthy. If they’re really luck they might be able to get as rich as Mexico! Which we Americans often forget is one of the wealthiest countries in the world per capita.

  27. How much of that is because of lax European borders? I mean fuck it if I’m in a 3rd world shit hole and I know I’m guaranteed a social net in Europe why the fuck would I stay in said 3rd world shit hole.

    1. DING DING DING. The problems haven’t got any worse in recent years. In fact we’ve had fewer wars and fewer deaths from wars then ever before in history in the last few decades. What’s changed is the incentive structure. When they know they can illegally bail to a rich country, and be let in, they’re almost idiots for NOT trying to do it.

      1. Economically, they’re acting rationally. Whereas western countries are acting economically irrationally by allowing them in.

        1. Yup. I’ve always said that I can’t blame them for wanting to come here, but I also don’t want to let them in to screw up my country. Any person or country can only take so much altruism before you end up screwing yourself. We’ve had enough of it in recent decades, we need a break.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.