Unacceptable Waste and Horrific Dangers

Both the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) have weighed in on the enormous costs of President Obama’s plans to permanently settle 200,000 Middle Eastern refugees in the United States during  2016 and 2017.  Several thousand have already arrived, and at least 10,000 more are scheduled to arrive during the balance of 2015.  Although thousands of Syrian and Iraqi Christians are being massacred or enslaved by ISIS, few of these refugees are Christians, and only about half are Syrians fleeing ISIS. So far, 97 percent of the refugees settled in the U.S. have been Sunni Muslims. Approximately the same percentages are true for the massive columns of refugees moving through Europe, most of them headed for Germany or Sweden, where social-welfare benefits are the most generous. They are coming from all over the Middle East and Africa, with substantial numbers coming from Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia, as well as Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. It is of some concern that 70 to 80 percent of these refugees are military age males. The U.S. FBI has already testified to Congress that they are unable to vet them and only reject about 10 percent. President Obama is urging them to expedite vetting. The same situation on vetting seems to be the rule in Europe.

According to Heritage Foundation scholar, Robert Rector, resettling a mere 10,000 Middle Eastern refugees in the U.S. would cost $130 million per year for health, education, welfare, retirement benefits, and community services net of any taxes paid. Refugees and their children are eligible for all U.S. benefits plus some cash payments immediately upon arrival in the U.S. Over an average additional lifetime of 50 years for this generation, the total cost would run to $6.5 billion, just for 10,000 refugees.

Center for Immigration Studies figures are based on actual experience for Middle Eastern refugees over the last five years, using 2013 pricing data.  CIS estimates that the cost per refugee, based on their education and skill levels, which are fairly low, would be $64, 370 for the first five years, averaging $12,874 per year.  For the average refugee household of 4.11 persons, that would be $257,481 for the first five years ALONE. Most refugees would continue to receive considerably more benefits than taxes received over their lifetimes. This is because their average education level is only 10.5 years, and a lower rate of female employment. According to a 2013 Heritage Foundation study of illegal immigration and amnesty, even the average American-born worker with less than a high school education, never ceases to be a negative fiscal drain on taxpayers.

Both CIS and the Heritage Foundation have an approximate fiscal cost estimate of $13,000 per year for Middle Eastern refugees, although the Heritage Foundation estimate includes an allocation of community services like fire, and police, whereas the CIS estimates are based on social-welfare costs alone. Although the accounting differs by country, the average annual resettlement costs over the first five years for most Western countries is between $10,000 and $25,000, with Germany at $14,500 and Norway at $24,691. The Finance Minister of Sweden, Margot Wallstrom, announced only last week that the refugee burden was near collapsing Sweden’s generous social-welfare system.  As the highly regarded economist Milton Friedman once said, you cannot have a welfare state and open-door immigration, too.

The surprising thing is that, according to the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) the United Nations can support refugees in safe areas of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey for only about $1,057 per year.  Granted that the facilities and benefits might not be as posh as the U.S., German, Norwegian, and Swedish welfare states, but for the $13,000 per year to help a Middle Eastern refugee in the U.S., 12 refugees can receive sufficient help, if they remain in a safe area of Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, or Jordan. In addition, the adjustment for the refugees will be easier when settling in countries with similar cultural and religious environments. Moreover, many more of them would be able to return to their home countries and help in their recovery, when the political climate is more stabilized. Why is the U.S. wasting so much money when there seems to be a much cheaper and wiser alternative?

Why would President Obama want to bring at least 200,000 largely unvetted Sunni Muslim refugees for permanent settlement into the United States? This is particularly disturbing, when 13 percent of refugees in the same UN Camps likely to supply Syrian refugees to the U.S., according to a Clarion Project poll, admit to a favorable opinion of ISIS and much larger percents are “neutral.” A total of 41 percent believe that either Israel or the U.S. is the greatest threat to the Arab world.  The odds for significant increases in terrorist inflicted casualties are at least twice as bad as frequent games of Russian roulette. How many thousands of American lives should we risk to avoid being called Islamophobes or other such propaganda names invented by the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda front in the U.S., the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and parroted by the brainless political correctness establishment? CAIR has been named by the FBI in a conspiracy to fund the Hamas terrorist group but has not yet been indicted. What degree of greed and hunger for political power does it take for politicians to turn their eyes away from grave dangers to national security and public safety?

The quasi-religious Federal contractors for the State Department’s Refugee Resettlement Program are all predominantly federally funded and compensated on a per refugee basis of about $1,000 each.  This is an unfortunate incentive to recommend as many U.S. refugee settlements as possible despite many objections from American communities targeted by the State Department and cooperative State governments. In addition, many local businesses hope to own fat Federal or State contracts for building apartments and other resettlement facilities and providing specialized services to refugees. The suspected abuses of fiscal responsibility are enough to warrant a full Congressional investigation.

A major concern about Muslim resettlements in the U.S. and other Western countries is the Islamic doctrine of Hijra, which uses immigration as a primary strategy for Jihadist conquest of all nations. Islamic doctrines also assert the superiority of Islam over all other belief systems. Built into the Quran is a goal of world domination by Islam and Islamic Law (Sharia), with no tolerance for dissent. Islam is especially incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, the U.S. Constitution, and even democratic forms of government. The U.S. First Amendment to the Constitution was never meant to require American self-destruction to accommodate Islam. Substantial unvetted Muslim settlements in the West invite serious inevitable conflict and hostile Fifth Column subversive influences on government. Moreover, the United States cannot sustain such outrageous and wasteful spending for objectives that are clearly incompatible with the best and common interests of the American people.


Leonard M. (Mike) Scruggs is the author of The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths, UniversalMedia, Asheville, 2011.

You have no rights to post comments