The Catholic News Service (“CNS”) reports that refugee admissions for FY 2011 have slowed dramatically due to new security measures put into place by the Department of Homeland Security.  The slow down effects not just the refugees–often times waiting in camps where they face disease and other dangers–but also the capacity of the resettlement agencies, which receive funding based on the number of people resettled.

For Fiscal Year 2011, President Obama has authorized the admission of up to 80,000 refugees.  However, according to CNS, as of mid-May (7 1/2 months into the fiscal year), only 38% of the 80,000 have been admitted.  This puts us on track to admit only about 49,000 refugees for the current fiscal year.  CNS reports:

Delays in the refugee resettlement process are being caused by a backlog of security clearances and additional security “holds,” according to Larry Bartlett, acting director of the Office of Refugee Admissions for the State Department. The additional security measures are part of a larger series of security enhancements by the Homeland Security Department.

These delays have several effects.  For one, refugees are forced to endure longer waits in camps, and families remain separated for longer periods.  Further, some refugees who have already been screened and cleared are now stuck waiting for the new security checks.  During this waiting period, certain of the clearances may expire, and the refugees will need to be cleared again–resulting in even more delays.  

In addition, the receiving agencies in the U.S. receive $700.00 for each refugee resettled.  The agencies are paid only when they actually receive the refugee.  This means that agencies’ revenues are down, and this could affect their capacity (for example, if an agency is forced to lay off workers, it may not be prepared if additional refugees arrive).   

A State Department spokesman stated that refugee admissions would increase during the remainder of the fiscal year, and that DOS expected to resettle between 63,000 and 74,000 refugees in FY 2011.

Of course, it is difficult to argue against additional security background checks, especially when it is unclear what those checks entail or why they have been put into place.  Further, for agencies in the business of resettlement, it seems only fair that they must adjust to the policy changes of the U.S. government.  That said, it is difficult for me not to be a bit skeptical about the new background checks.  Hopefully, though, once the new system is up and running, refugee admissions will return to normal levels, so we can fulfill our commitment to assisting people in dire need and keep our country safe. 

Continue reading

The Senate’s recent decision to fund the government through a continuing resolution instead of an omnibus appropriations bill will have major implications for refugee resettlement agencies in the United States, reports the Huffington Post. 

The President’s proposed budget for FY 2011 had included an 18.5% increase in funding for refugee programs, an increase that is desperately needed.  However, the continuing resolution keeps funding at FY 2010 levels.  This means that refugee resettlement agencies do not have the resources to do their jobs, and that refugees are unable to meet short term needs–such as grocery bills and rent, and long term needs–such as moving towards self sufficiency. 

There is some bipartisan support for increasing funding for resettlement.  The Huffington Post reports:

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a report in July stating that funding for refugee programs is too low, and that that, in turn, puts strain on local communities stepping in to fill the void. Lugar argued the government should either accept fewer refugees, or give more funding to programs designed to help those that are allowed into the country.

In tough economic times, there is a temptation to reduce the number of refugees we admit into the United States (the admissions ceiling for FY 2011 is 80,000 refugees, which is similar to previous years).  However, if the U.S. reduces its refugee numbers, other countries will likely follow suit.  This means that thousands of refugees will be left to linger, and sometimes die, in refugee camps.  The U.S. has been–and should continue to be–the leader in assisting refugees.  Further, we bear a particular responsibility since many of the refugees come from Iraq and Afghanistan, collateral damage from our efforts to fight terrorism and extremism.

Protecting and resettling refugees helps the United States maintain its moral leadership in the world.  As they say, the U.S. is great when it is good.  We should fully fund our refugee resettlement programs to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in our community get the assistance they need. 

Continue reading