Should the U.S. Admit More Refugees?

In 2019, the United States admitted 30,000 refugees as part of its program to aid people fleeing war or persecution in their home countries. That’s the smallest number of refugees resettled in the U.S. since 1977. This year, the Trump administration plans to reduce the number of refugees allowed to 18,000.

Experts disagree about whether the U.S. should admit more refugees. A representative of a group that resettles refugees faces off against someone from an organization that favors less immigration of all kinds.

January 27, 2020

Today, there are 30 million refugees worldwide and another 40 million people displaced within their own countries—the highest levels of displacement on record. American leadership needs to respond to this global refugee crisis, but instead the Trump administration has decided to drastically cut the number of refugees the U.S. admits to no more than 18,000.

America’s refugee resettlement program has had bipartisan support in Congress for decades. Following the unanimous vote in the Senate to create the refugee resettlement program in 1980, Republican and Democratic administrations have admitted an average of 95,000 refugees into the United States annually. These refugees were fleeing persecution from some of the world’s most dangerous places, including the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Iran, Haiti, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Refugee resettlement has a long history of bipartisan support.

These refugees have made an enormous contribution to the U.S. economy: From 2005 to 2014, refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenue than they cost in services, according to a draft government report. Refugees paid $269 billion in taxes over that period. In cities across the U.S., communities have been reshaped by refugees filling vacant jobs, buying homes, opening small businesses, joining the military, and becoming U.S. citizens.

Historically, American greatness has been rooted in our diversity. And although our history includes the tragedy of slavery, it also reflects the core American value of granting asylum to those who seek liberty. Thomas Jefferson hinted at this tradition when he wrote of “the natural right which all men have of relinquishing the country in which birth or other accident may have thrown them, and seeking and happiness wheresoever they may be able.”

Admitting only 18,000 refugees to the U.S. this year will have irreparable consequences that do not serve our national interests and further damage our standing as a global leader. The U.S. should rise to the current challenge and offer more refugees a new home.

—ANNETTE SHECKLER

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants

The U.S. refugee resettlement program is well intentioned, but overall it does more harm than good. Refugee resettlement results in a form of economic injustice because the highest costs are paid by Americans who have the lowest incomes and education levels.

The individual refugee bears no blame for this. But most arrive in the U.S. without a high school education and compete for wages in the same occupations as Americans who struggle the most economically.

Americans without a high school degree already suffer from higher unemployment rates—5.6 percent in 2018, compared with 3.9 percent for the overall population. The disadvantage is even worse for African Americans without a high school diploma: 10.4 percent of them were unemployed in 2018.

Competition from refugees isn’t the main reason for this , but adding that extra competition makes the problem worse. Occupations that once provided middle-class wages—such as the meatpacking industry—have seen wages collapse because of the introduction of refugee populations that swell the labor supply.

Resettling refugees in the U.S. hurts the most vulnerable Americans.

In addition, resettling refugees in the U.S. is not an efficient way to show compassion toward the 70 million forcibly displaced people worldwide. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies of the net government costs of resettling one refugee for five years estimated that the same money could provide five years of safety, for example, for at least 12 Middle Eastern refugees in their home region.

Over the last 10 years, the U.S. government estimates that it has paid $125 billion for U.S. resettlement. That money would be better spent in the refugees’ home regions to keep refugees alive with reasonably comfortable shelter, food, and health care until they can move safely back to their homes as soon as possible.

The moral challenge surrounding refugees is not how to resettle more of them in the United States but how to help more refugees worldwide who are in the greatest need.

—ROY BECK

President, NumbersUSA Education & Research Foundation

Life and Culture

Debate

Text-to-Speech