In September of 2017 the Trump Administration dropped the annual refugee cap to 45,000 persons admitted annually. Not only is this the lowest limit of the refugee cap since the implementation of the Refugee Act of 1980, the cap dips lower than the 50,000 minimum cap set by the Refugee Act.
The suggested cap is based on estimates and suggestions from the Department of Homeland Security, which advocated for as low as 40,000, while completely ignoring the findings and suggestions of other relevant departments. The State Department and the Department of Defense both called for no fewer than the minimum 50,000-refugee cap,
(It’s also important to note that the annual Refugee Cap is only rarely met, and that more often than not the United States accepts significantly less refugees than it has the resources to.)
Unsurprisingly, the dip in the cap caused great outrage. As the global community finds itself in the largest refugee crisis in recorded history, it is remarkably counter intuitive to decrease the cap, when we have the capacity to accept 100,000s more.
The White House justified the 45,000 cap citing concerns of national security and limited resources. The budget released by the Trump Administration back in May stated “under the refugee program, the federal government brings tens of thousands of entrants into the United States, on top of existing legal immigration flows, who are instantly eligible for time-limited cash benefits and numerous noncash federal benefits, including food assistance through SNAP, medical care and education, as well as a host of state and local benefits.”
Most significantly though internal study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, completed in late July, found that refugees “contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government” between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes stating, “overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.”
Outside of the Government there are various other sources reaffirming how the economy is benefitted by immigrants and refugees. An analysis from the Washington Post reviewed research conducted by the American Community Survey, an annual survey conducted by the Census Bureau. Their analysis suggests that within a handful of years after arriving, quite a few refugees are doing as well as or perhaps better than the average American resident, according to basic economic indicators. “Within seven years, refugees reach a higher median income and lower use of food stamps than their neighbors. They develop language competency fairly quickly, and remain active in the workforce, buoying the local economy.”
Across the board economic indicators are suggesting that refugees and immigrants are very supportive and beneficial to the American economy – by blocking these refugees out we not only keep them from their potential, we block our own communities from thriving.