Trump To Adopt Draconian Refugee Cap, Admit Fewest Refugees In Decades

Two days after the Trump administration officially abandoned its controversial travel ban in favor of targeted restrictions singling out travelers from a larger list of countries, Foreign Policy is reporting that the Trump administration plans to dramatically reduce the number of refugees that the US accepts every year – the long-awaited second part of the administration’s immigration agenda.

The new targeted restrictions, officially confirmed late Sunday, range from a near-total ban on visitors from some countries to restrictions on only a small number of visas in others. Officials say they were applied to countries that were unable or unwilling to adopt policies that help vet their nationals to detect security threats.

Combined with the Trump administration’s new “targeted” restrictions – to be sure, pro-immigration groups have vowed a legal challenge – the tighter restrictions on refugees represents the replacement of a section of Trump's travel ban that faced fierce resistence from federal district judges who repeatedly tried to overturn the ban, or limit its scope.

The long-awaited decision comes less than a week after Trump told the United Nations General Assembly that the United States prefers to prevent refugees from leaving their region and resettling in the United States. It comes at a time when the ranks of the world’s refugees have swelled to more than 22 million, placing an enormous burden on countries from Bangladesh to Turkey.


“For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region,” Trump told the gathering in remarks that were overshadowed by the president’s threat to destroy North Korea and his criticism of the Iran nuclear deal.

Foreign Policy explained that the new limits on refugees represented a compromise between White House hardliners who wanted to slash the resettlement program deeper, and moderates who wanted to preserve the program, even if at a lower level than under former President Barack Obama.

Stephen Miller, a White House advisor and key architect of the president’s immigration policies, had argued for a far smaller number, but was overruled.

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security recommended a slightly higher quota, arguing that it would give the US leverage to encourage other nations to accept refugees.

The Department of Homeland Security had argued behind closed doors for a ceiling of 40,000. But Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan suggested that the U.S. could easily absorb 50,000 new refugees and that a more generous resettlement policy could provide other diplomatic benefits, including greater leverage in encouraging other countries to resettle refugees, and enhance the United States’ moral standing in the world.

According to FP, the State Department proposal was backed by the office of the vice president, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the US mission to the United Nations. The military pushed for special provisions to allow for the resettlement of interpreters from countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, who would be targeted as collaborators by insurgents if left in their own countries.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was reportedly responsible for picking the final number for the quota.

Then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson undercut Sullivan’s position, proposing that the number be reduced to 45,000, according to one administration official and a former U.S. official.


The news agency Axios first reported on Tillerson’s recommendation to cap refugee resettlement at 45,000. Tillerson and Elaine Duke, the acting Homeland Security secretary, will present a report to Congress Wednesday detailing the request for 45,000 to Congress.

The Administration’s decision comes as the number of refugees around the world swells to more than 20 million as countries from Bangladesh to Turkey to Germany have absorbed large numbers of migrants fleeing conflicts in Syria, Libya and Afghanistan. However, the EU has struggled to formulate a comprehensive response to the refugee crisis. By reducing its refugee quota, Trump is sending a message that he remains a hardliner on immigration, despite striking a deal that will likely allow Democrats to pass legislation enshrining DACA into law.


greenskeeper carl Atomizer Tue, 09/26/2017 - 14:21 Permalink

How about a ceiling of "0" refugees. God damn republicans are stupid. You are importing 45k non white democrat voters. Between their ability to petition to bring the rest of their extended family here to join them, and the fact that they are essentially subsidized by the goverment to have more kids, in a generation or two that 45k will be 250k plus. What the fuck, donald?

In reply to by Atomizer

greenskeeper carl jcaz Tue, 09/26/2017 - 14:39 Permalink

He isn't 'making good' on anything. He is slightly reducing the number of refugees, siting a bunch of bullshit or why the number isn't drastically lower, or zero. Saying it will give us 'more diplomatic leverage whn encouraging other countries to accept more refugees' is total bullshit. Everyone in the world hates us, and isn't going to take in more refugees because we took in 45k of them into our 330 million person country. If he wanted to actually *solve* the refugee crisis, he can do it, easily. Stop bombing their countries, or supplying arms or training to others who are doing so. This isn't going to stop the sectarian or ethnic violence in every country, or completely end the refugee crisis worldwide. But, that isn't our problem. The best part is, we can drastically reduce the number of refugees worldwide without importing a bunch of third world, skillless people who will never amount to anything other than mouths for the taxpayer to feed. The lack of military expenditures will also drastically reduce our obscenely bloated budget. THAT is why he was elected, not simply reduce the number of thirld world squatters by 20%.

In reply to by jcaz

jcaz greenskeeper carl Tue, 09/26/2017 - 15:04 Permalink

"Everyone in the world hates us";And?Retreat to your safe space, carl- cry yourself to sleep tonight oh so gently.......Geez, I forgot that being President was a popularity contest....  And apparently you think there is some sort of global "like" contest, too- are we really in last place, carl?   Damn-  who's in first?Try learning some politics-  you don't get everything you want in one swoop- neither side wins on those deals.

In reply to by greenskeeper carl

greenskeeper carl jcaz Tue, 09/26/2017 - 15:37 Permalink

You missed my point, dumbass. I don't give a shit about everyone hating us. My point is that letting in a couple thousand more refugees isn't going to suddenly make us friends, or make people like us and be any more likely to do what we want them to diplomatically. They do what we want them to if and only if one of these two conditions apply: it benefits them to do so, or we excert some kind of diplomatic, military, or financial pressure on them. Trying to come off as kind and cuddly by letting in a few more squatters than we otherwise would isn't going to change that. Simple enough for you?

In reply to by jcaz

knukles Atomizer Tue, 09/26/2017 - 14:26 Permalink

Quotas. So today I'm at our Farmer's market.  Freshest most excellent fruit and veggies on the cheap.  So I'm looking for some cantaloupes and the 2 Mexicans at the stand don't pay any attention.  Finally one asks what I want with a kind of grunt.  I asked if I can taste some cantaloupe.  He looks at his buddy, they both kinda shrug and he says; "We don got no knives, man"                             Those are the first 2 Mexicans I've ever met didn't have a knifeWell I had my knife.  But I simply said thank you, smiled and walked off.It's all about choices. 

In reply to by Atomizer

charlewar Tue, 09/26/2017 - 14:20 Permalink

ship the ones here home...they hate us, don't assimilate but only love sucking our welfare trough. Enough of this pc bullshit lest we become a 3d world shithole too.

vulcanraven charlewar Tue, 09/26/2017 - 16:18 Permalink

I saw this image posted on social media today, by a white woman whom I know through other acquaintances. I could be mistaken, but isn't the reverse of this image exactly what white guilt progressives, Antifa, BLM, Feminists, and assorted other minorities are whining about? Systematic white (male) oppression being responsible for holding down every single disenfranchised group of society? If that is the case, how was anyone in this image able to become a doctor?

In reply to by charlewar

dot_bust Tue, 09/26/2017 - 14:23 Permalink

Yeah. So what?The U.S. economy is going to come to a grinding halt.The financial information of half the American population has been hacked through Equifax. Now, 143 million Americans have to do a credit freeze.Ask yourself one vital question: If we live in a credit-fueled economy and half the country has to freeze its credit, what happens to the economy?

BritBob Tue, 09/26/2017 - 14:23 Permalink

First there is a need to separate the genuine refugees from economic migrants. About 60% of those trying to enter Europe are the latter.

jmack Tue, 09/26/2017 - 14:24 Permalink

If you wonder why they are hammering the NFL crap, besides Trump tweeting about it, is because a DACA dreamer style immigrant, who came here at 5 years old from Sudan, just shot up a white church which he apparantly attended a few years back.     so white boy dylan roof shoots up black church, all whites are guilty and confederate flags are  removed from everywhere.  And America is racist narrative reinforced for about 2 months.   black immigrant shoots up white church,  crickets.…

Nigger Rich Tue, 09/26/2017 - 14:27 Permalink

White people need to understand immigration is literally killing them. Until the majority wake-up it doesn't matter. I see so many white chrisitians welcoming in these invaders, meekly donating and assisting these non-white savages, I think it's too late. I can see why segregation was in place. Literally seeing 1 non-white in your town was a harbringer of the collapse of your people.