More fossil fuels, a cleaner environment

It is certainly true that fossil fuel use can cause significant harm to environmental quality, but as you can see from this chart, as fossil fuel use has gone up in the US, concentrations of air pollutants have gone down, which contradicts the catastrophic pollution narrative.

image

We can use more fossil fuels and have a cleaner environment. What’s behind this? The cause is technology plus laws. Let’s start with the technology.

Technology vs. pollution

Here’s a question. What industry invented recycling? The oil industry invented recycling. In the 1800s the oil industry was refining crude oil into kerosene but they had a lot of waste material because you might get only 50% kerosene from the crude. The rest of it was unusable and sometimes would just be dumped into a river.

But thanks to human ingenuity, we not only stopped dumping the waste into rivers; we started transforming what had been waste into wealth. For example, the industry began generating waxes and lubricants and all kinds of other useful materials from oil.

Then in the 20th century, they developed processes to break down the crude oil and its hydrocarbons into petrochemicals, which as we’ve seen have created countless different products. That’s a way in which something that can be a negative can be turned into a positive.

You can also use technology to dramatically reduce emissions sometimes to the point where they are completely benign. North Dakota, for instance, has coal power and also some of the world’s cleanest air. How does that happen?

Using technology, you can mitigate threats–and you can even turn them into benefits.

EDITORS NOTE: University of Maryland economist Julian Simon noted in his 1981 book that the human brain is the “ultimate resource.” Humans can innovate themselves out of scarcity by becoming more efficient, increasing supply, and developing substitutes. Hammond presents the following facts:

New technologies and improved farming methods have led humanity to use less land, while producing more food, which is then sold at a cheaper price. In 2013, the world used 26 million fewer hectares of farmland than it did at the turn of the millennium. To take cereals as an example: A hectare today produces on average 118 percent more yield than it would have 50 years ago. If all farmers could reach the productivity of an average U.S. farmer, the world could return a land mass the size of India back to nature.

As for the finite resource that our modern world depends upon, consider fossil fuels. Thanks to improved detection and drilling technology, there are now far more oil and gas reserves than ever before. Since 1980, proven oil reserves have increased by over 151 percent; for gas this figure was 163 percent. To put these data into perspective, in 2015 we used 34 billion barrels of crude oil, while we discovered another 53.2 billion barrels each year between 2010 and 2015.

We’re solving the problems of hungerpovertyilliteracydiseaseinfant mortalityfood production and much more at an unprecedented rate. And instead of becoming more scarce, natural resources are actually declining in price.

The Downside of Regulating Facebook

James L. GattusoThe end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook and other platforms.


In congressional testimony last month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he would support regulation of his own company.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John Kennedy, R-La., have now taken him up on the offer, introducing a bill, S. 2728, to impose broad new restrictions on how Facebook and other social media companies can collect and handle consumer data.

Taking Facebook to Task

The legislation—dubbed the Social Media Privacy Protection and Consumer Rights Act—was no surprise. Klobuchar and Kennedy had made clear weeks ago that they were planning to propose federal intervention in social media markets.

As Kennedy succinctly put it to Zuckerberg: “Your user agreement sucks.”

The goal was to address privacy concerns raised by the acquisition and use of consumer data from Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica data firm.

“We can do it the easy way or the hard way,” Kennedy bluntly stated regarding his regulatory plans, adding, “I do not want to regulate Facebook half to death, but we do have … problems we’ve discovered.”

The bill is a grab bag of mandates and restrictions on how social media networks operate. The most widely discussed provision is a requirement that social media platforms use “plain English” in their user agreements, so consumers can better understand them.

That line was memorable and garnered quite a bit of attention for the Louisiana lawmaker. But the irony is that Congress is hardly in a position to lecture private companies on the plain use of the English language, as anyone who has ever read congressional legislation can attest.

It’s About the Data

The meat of the bill, however, is not linguistics, but limits on the collection of consumer data by Facebook and other social media platforms.

Among its provisions, the bill would require social media networks by law to disable consumer data tracking and collection (when so requested by a user); to provide notice of a data breach within 72 hours; to delete user data when asked; and to provide copies of what has been collected about them.

The end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook.

The bill avoids the most extreme restrictions that have been proposed. It doesn’t ban the use of consumer data, nor does it require an affirmative “opt-in” for such data to be used as a general rule.

But consumers should not celebrate. The Klobuchar-Kennedy plan is likely only the first volley in a probable bidding war over regulating social media networks. Even the mandates in the current bill could threaten the benefits consumers receive from social media platforms.

For instance, by making data more difficult to acquire and to use, advertising revenue may no longer be able to support social media platforms. The end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook and other platforms.

That would be a net loss for most users, who—based on their usage habits—like the free access to social media made possible by advertising revenue.

So far, Facebook has not made a fuss over the proposed new rules. In fact, it has openly supported some of the provisions, including notifications of breaches within 72 hours and the “plain English” requirement.

We Don’t Need a New Law

But this should create no free pass. Regulations making it more difficult to use consumer data often make competition more difficult because smaller rivals may find it harder to absorb the regulatory costs.

The impact of regulations varies, of course, based on the specific regulation, but it’s a danger policymakers should always keep in mind.

Robust laws are already on the books addressing breaches of commitments to consumers.

This doesn’t mean government should do nothing to ensure that an internet-based company such as Facebook complies with its promises to consumers.

If data has been used in violation of commitments made to the users of a platform, the firm should be held accountable for the violation. But that does not necessarily require new regulation.

Robust laws are already on the books addressing breaches of commitments to consumers. Moreover, agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission already have rules that can—and often are—used to enforce privacy commitments.

Consumers can also use state contract law to sue Facebook for any breach of its commitments. No new rules should be imposed without a clear showing that the many existing tools are not already adequate to protect consumer privacy.

This may not be the “easy way” or the “hard way” of making markets work, but it is the right way.

Reprinted from the Daily Signal.

EDITORS NOTE: Many former Facebook users are go to new social media platforms. One of them is MeWe.com.

Bible Professor Knocks Down David French’s Attack On Evangelical Trump Supporters

Writing in National Review, David French launched another attack on evangelical Christians who support President Trump, calling them out as sinful compromisers denying the supreme purpose of God in their lives.

I wholeheartedly reject French’s rebuke as valid. It is wrong biblically, philosophically and, by extension, politically.

By way of context, I became a follower of Jesus Christ in 1982 when I was 17. Due to my submission to the authority of Scripture, I likewise fall into the category of what is commonly called “evangelical” — a term that is as frequently misunderstood as it is misused. I mention these points upfront since it is people like me who sit in the audience to which French was aiming his rebuke.

It landed hollow, however, because it is fraught with nonsense arguments, non-sequiturs and self-incriminating irony that French appears to miss. Below is just a brief glance at some of the main problems with his accusation.

 French began the piece by asking what the ultimate goal of a Christian’s life should be. The lead was obvious: Evangelical Christians who support Trump have strayed from God’s purpose for their lives. French was in essence invoking God’s supreme purpose in Christ as the basis for why an Evangelical should not support Trump. However, the entire argument is nonsense. Everything that follows his opening question is non sequitur to that initial question. Just because pursuing the “common good” (i.e., civil righteousness) of one’s culture is not a Christian’s ultimate goal in this age, it does not follow that it is not an incredibly important responsibility. It is silly to negate numerous areas of God-ordained responsibilities on the premise of God’s ultimate purpose. French would undoubtedly argue that support for President Trump is antithetical to what is good for a nation; but that is an altogether different issue than his main and opening premise.

 Voting for Trump and continuing to support the vast majority of his subsequent policies is without question a pursuit of the “common good” of our nation and culture. The choice to vote for Hillary Clinton, or even abstain from voting because Trump is a flawed man, is arguably a choice to pursue (or passively permit) overt and vile wickedness to prevail in the life of a nation. Present space does not permit me to itemize the progressive agenda and examine it in the light of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True — virtues that are revealed supremely in the character and nature of God. Suffice it to say that God expects (and will hold accountable) all post-Fall humans to live according to how we were created. Scripture describes it as God’s “image and likeness.” Even those people groups who deny His existence have long recognized fixed, uniform, and universal moral principles that are a part of our very moral fabric.

 French has no authority to state that Evangelical Christians who voted for and support Trump are guilty of “sin.” He made no case from Scripture; it was merely a fiat judgment of his own making. Ironically, making such a judgment based solely on the basis of one’s opinion is a very serious charge. I don’t think French perceived the irony.

 On the other hand, a positive case can be made, contra French, that one of the God-ordained responsibilities of a Christian is to actively oppose evil in one’s culture and promote that which is good. Again, Clinton and nearly every position she actively pursues is contrary, not only to the common good (viz., natural law), but to the very moral fabric of humans made in God’s image and likeness. While it is true that such responsibilities do not fall under the Christian’s relationship to God as Redeemer (in Christ); it is without question the duty of all human beings who relate to God as their Creator (whether they admit it or not). It is called loving your neighbor.

 As already noted, French’s article made no sense. I am not stating this because I disagree with his assertions (which I do), but he demonstrates absolutely no correlation between his opinions and everything that goes before and after them. While he is certainly entitled to his own opinions, he is not entitled to determine his own facts — particularly ones that when disagreed with makes one guilty of “sin” in God’s sight.

Interestingly, if I were to take French’s own actions as my lead, I would have to conclude that the obligation of a Christian is to scold Evangelicals who voted for Trump and publicly shame them for this “sin” — and that this would be my supreme purpose.

ABOUT DARREL COX

Darrel Cox is Professor of Biblical Studies at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Va. He teaches core and upper level courses in Biblical Studies and writes curriculum for online classes. Dr. Cox lives near Winchester, Virginia, with his wife and seven children.

Podcast: The Influence Netflix, Other TV Has on Kids

Joining us today is Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council. Winter explains how Netflix and other new media technologies have made it harder than ever for parents to monitor their kids’ media consumption. Yet now media is promoting, in addition to sex and violence, suicide, making it crucial for parents to be involved. Plus: President Trump floats the idea of taking away the media’s credentials.

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the Netflix show, “13 Reasons Why,” which has been accused of romanticizing suicide. (Photo: Mike Blake/Reuters/Newscom)

VIDEO: The Two Wrongs of The Right

Two issues that conservatives often get wrong – Liberalism is a mental disease and Islam is not a religion:

RELATED ARTICLE: The Left’s Chilling Refusal to Stop Flirting With Marxist Ideas

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by D.T. Devareaux.

VIDEO: Fighting the ‘Violence of Lies’ with the ‘Belt of Truth’

In April of 2018 the National Rifle Association (NRA) released the below video titled “Violence of Lies.” The video features Dana Loesch who is a gun owner and member of the NRA. Those opposed to the Second Amendment took issue with Ms. Loesch’s use of the phrase “fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.”

David Hogg, leader of the anti-Second Amendment “We Call BS” movement.

The clenched fist has been used as a symbol by various groups including: the Black Panthers, The New Black Panthers, the Resistance, ANTIFA, Occupy Wall Street, the anti-Second Amendment We Call BS and Black Lives Matter movements.

It appears using the “clenched fist” metaphor is only permissible for those who actually do violence.

Perhaps the NRA should redo this ad and use the words found in Ephesians 6: 10-17:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

You see with belt of truth buckled around your waist you cannot lose.

We are fighting against “the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

It is time to pick up the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Oops, we just like Ms. Loesch committed a thought crime.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance.

All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m freedom’s safest place.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The Top 20 Uncontested Absurdities of Today

So They’re Not Coming for Our Guns, Eh? We call BS.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Dan Carlson. Twitter: @dan_carl5on.

Migration Madness Syndrome

Europe’s Elite want their citizens to believe open borders and migration from Islamic countries will solve their need for a future workforce due to a shrinking population. I call their bluff. If they need workers, why not get them from the poorer parts of the EU–Romania, Bulgaria, Greece? This isn’t about guest workers. This is about the Left securing a voting block so they can be voted into office in perpetuity.  Islam makes for a perfect partner in their endeavor to achieve political dominance. Both conspire to tear down society and rebuild their Utopian ideal. What the Left doesn’t realize is when Islam ultimately takes power, as it tends to do, the last laugh will be on the them, just as it was with the Tudeh Party in Iran. In the end, Islam has no loyalty to Kafirs, only to Allah and Mohammed.

To understand Islamic migration today, it is imperative to understand the concept of hijra. The hijra dates to the time of Mohammed when he left Mecca and moved to Medina where he became a warlord and politician. Mohammed’s migration, or hijra, is so important to the success of Islam that it is the basis for the Islamic calendar.

Hijra is a form of soft jihad and is quite effective for spreading Islam.

Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki stated, referring to doctrine: “Jihad today is obligatory on every capable Muslim…it is your duty to find ways to practice it and support it.” He then lists 44 ways to support jihad. In #36 Preparing for Hijrah, al-Awlaki quotes Mohammed: “Hijrah does not stop as long as there is an enemy to fight”.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind, said, “the practical way to defeat America is through immigration and “outbreeding non-Muslims”.  These jihadists are not creating new ideas. They are repeating 1400 year old doctrine.

The bottom line: Hijra is a tactic to pave the way for Sharia.

Ultimately, the danger of migration is not that there will be too many unemployed workers draining welfare dollars from the state, but it’s that Sharia supremacists will keep Islamicizing the EU.  These guest workers aren’t going home. They have a religious duty to stay and fulfill the doctrine. Their loyalty is to Allah and Mohammed, not to the Kafir countries of the West. History has shown that once a nation is invaded by Islam, it will become 100% Islamic, unless driven out.

What is the solution?

We must wake up to the true nature of the problem. The doctrine of the Left says we aren’t nice enough, we need more programs, we need to integrate migrants better–the fault is always ours. I happen to agree that the fault is with us, but it is due to our ignorance, not our lack of virtue.

Once we understand the problem is the Islamic doctrine, then we can make proper plans for solutions, like changing migration laws, citizenry laws, instituting zero tolerance for Sharia, etc. In the meantime, churches and everyday people need to push back. We can’t wait for the government Elite.

Society can use social pressure like a weapon. We need to make fun of Sharia, use shame and humor. Islam reacts to shame and humor like a weed to poison. When a society can make Mohammed jokes, we win. It’s that simple. As soon as we become a citizenry of blasphemers, the problem solves itself.  This is key: to reverse Islamization, it must entail mass civil disobedience against censorship and oppression of freedom of thought, not just a few brave souls.

We must never give up. We must come out of the closet and face our fears. We can prevail and must because our civilization and freedoms are too precious to lose. Stand up Europe. Do not let North Africa and Arabia be your destiny.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Fiscal Cost of Resettling Refugees in the United States

Minnesota Somalis: You’re old and we are taking over

RELATED VIDEO: To learn more about hijra, watch video Hijra: Islamic Migration

Problematic Women: Melania Trump’s Approval Ratings Reach a Personal ‘Best’

Michelle Obama demeans women who voted for President Donald Trump (again), Melania Trump’s favorability ratings reach a personal “best,” and did celebrities at the Met Gala appropriate Catholic culture? Plus: women stand up against the leader of the “resistance,” and a special tribute for Mother’s Day. All that and more in this week’s edition of Problematic Women. Watch in the video above, or listen in the podcast below.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal and co-host of “Problematic Women,” a podcast and Facebook Live show. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: .

Portrait of Bre Payton

Bre Payton is the culture and millennial politics reporter for The Federalist. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of First Lady Melania Trump announcing her “Be Best” children’s initiative in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, May 7, 2018. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

See What Foreign Country Your State Matches in Total GDP

Mark J. PerryAdjusted for the size of the workforce, there might not be any country in the world that produces as much output per worker as the US.

by Mark J. Perry


The map below (click to enlarge) was created (with assistance from AEI’s graphic design director Olivier Ballou) by matching the economic output (Gross Domestic Product) for each US state (and the District of Columbia) in 2017 to a foreign country with a comparable nominal GDP last year, using data from the BEA for GDP by US state and data for GDP by country from the International Monetary Fund. For each US state (and the District of Columbia), we identified the country closest in economic size in 2017 (measured by nominal GDP) and those matching countries are displayed in the map and in the table below. Obviously, in some cases, the closest match was a country that produced slightly more, or slightly less, economic output in 2017 than a given US state.

It’s pretty difficult to even comprehend how ridiculously large the US economy is, and the map above helps put America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $19.4 trillion ($19,400,000,000,000) in 2017 into perspective by comparing the economic size (GDP) of individual US states to other country’s entire national output. For example:

  1. America’s largest state economy is California, which produced $2.75 trillion of economic output in 2017, just slightly below the GDP of the United Kingdom last year of $2.62 trillion. Consider this: California has a labor force of 19.3 million compared to the labor force in the UK of 33.8 million (World Bank data here). Amazingly, it required a labor force 75 percent larger (and 14.5 million more people) in the UK to produce the same economic output last year as California! That’s a testament to the superior, world-class productivity of the American worker. Further, California as a separate country would have been the 5th largest economy in the world last year, ahead of the UK ($2.62 trillion), India ($2.61 trillion) and France ($2.58 trillion).
  2. America’s second largest state economy—Texas—produced nearly $1.7 trillion of economic output in 2017, which would have ranked the Lone Star State as the world’s 10th largest economy last year. GDP in Texas was slightly higher than Canada’s GDP last year of $1.65 trillion. However, to produce about the same amount of economic output as Texas required a labor force in Canada (20 million) that was nearly 50 percent larger than the labor force in the state of Texas (13.5 million). That is, it required a labor force of 6.5 million more workers in Canada to produce roughly the same output as Texas last year. Another example of the world-class productivity of the American workforce.
  3. Even with all of its oil wealth, Saudi Arabia’s GDP in 2017 at $683 billion was below the GDP of US states like Pennsylvania ($752 billion) and Illinois ($820 billion).
  4. America’s third largest state economy—New York with a GDP in 2017 of $1.55 trillion—produced slightly more economic output last year than South Korea ($1.54 trillion). As a separate country, New York would have ranked as the world’s 11th largest economy last year, ahead of No. 12 South Korea, No. 13 Russia ($1.53 trillion) and No. 14 Australia ($1.38 trillion). Amazingly, it required a labor force in South Korea of 27.9 million that was nearly three times larger than New York’s (9.7 million) to produce roughly the same amount of economic output last year! More evidence of the world-class productivity of American workers.
  5. Other comparisons: Florida ($967 billion) produced almost the same amount of GDP in 2017 as Indonesia ($1 trillion), even though Florida’s labor force of 10.1 million is less than 8 percent of the size of Indonesia’s workforce of 127.1 million. GDP in Illinois last year of $820 billion was just slightly higher than economic output in the Netherlands ($825 billion), even though the labor force in Illinois (6.5 million workers) is 28 percent smaller than the labor force in the Netherlands (9 million workers).

Overall, the US produced 24.3 percent of world GDP in 2017, with only about 4.3 percent of the world’s population. Three of America’s states (California, Texas and New York)—as separate countries—would have ranked in the world’s top 11 largest economies last year. Together, those three US states produced nearly $6.0 trillion in economic output last year, and as a separate country would have ranked as the world’s third-largest economy and ahead of No. 4 Japan ($4.8 trillion) by more than $1 trillion. And one of those states—California—produced more than $2.7 trillion in economic output in 2017—and the other two (Texas and New York) produced $1.7 trillion and $1.5 trillion of GDP in 2017 respectively.

Adjusted for the size of the workforce, there might not be any country in the world that produces as much output per worker as the US, thanks to the world-class productivity of the American workforce. The map above and the statistics summarized here help remind us of the enormity of the economic powerhouse we live and work in. So let’s not lose sight of how ridiculously large and powerful the US economy is, and how much wealth, output, and prosperity is being created every day in the largest economic engine there has ever been in human history.


click to enlarge

Special thanks to Kevin Kiefer for assistance with the data collection for this post.

Reprinted from the American Enterprise Institute.

Despite The Media, Trump is Winning for We the People

I love the old gospel song, “Peace In the Midst of the Storm.” In the midst of the Deep State’s raging, unprecedented hate-storm against Trump, he remarkably remains at peace, and so should we.

Trump and We the People are winning. Fake news media sells its lie 24/7 that voters regret voting for Trump and he is mere days from impeachment. In truth, Trump’s approval has risen to 51%. Leftists are pulling their hair out in frustration; screaming, how can we stop this freaking outsider amateur politician? The tide is turning in our favor.

The Deep State’s billions, traps and lies continue to fail. Incredibly, Trump repeatedly lands on his feet, confidently pressing forward on making America great again. It’s a God thing folks.

At the 2018 White House Correspondence Dinner, Michelle Wolf wrongly assumed her hate-filled attacks on Trump and women in his administration, along with her callousness against unborn babies would score a home-run for liberalism. Even devout leftists were uncomfortable with Ms Wolf vomiting leftists’ pure hatred for traditional Americans for all the world to see. Ms Wolf’s foulmouthed mean-spirited monologue hit a home-run for Conservatism. We are winning folks.

Pop icon Kanye West’s recent conservative comments and praise for Trump is huge. With Kanye’s 27 million twitter followers, millions of blacks heard conservatism for the first time. Since Kanye’s conservative tweet, black male approval of Trump has doubled. In essence, Kanye’s message mirrors mine; stop weakening yourselves with victim mindsets, make right choices and simply go for your dreams. Liberate yourselves from slavery on Democrats’ government dependency plantation. In Trump and Kanye, God is using unexpected vessels to spread His truth. Conservatism truly is best for all people. Kanye represents a huge crack in leftists’ wall of ignorance enslaving low-info voters.

It was thrilling hearing Trump announce that the United States will withdraw for Obama’s insane Iran Nuke Deal. Trump pulled no punches in explaining why Obama appeasing Iran was dangerous for America and our ally Israel. For crying out loud folks, what idiot president gives $150 billion to a regime which chants, “Death to America!“? 

Israel is despised by most leftists. Trump having the courage to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel and actually move our US embassy to Jerusalem is amazing. Regarding Israel, God said, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” Genesis 12:3

Remember Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi who was outrageously held in a Mexican jail for 7 months? Obama refused to make a phone call for Tahmooressi’s release. Presidential candidate Trump intervened, successfully freeing Tahmooressi. 

Amazingly, Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is headed home from North Korea with 3 previously held hostages; a gesture of good faith for Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un. https://bit.ly/2K7CA7m Can you say “Trump: The Art of the Deal” boys and girls?

In essence, Obama received affirmative action Nobel Prizes because he is black and for touring the world apologizing for who we are as Americans and begging forgiveness. Numerous pundits say Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize the old fashion way — he earned it. 

If Trump successfully ends the 70 year Korean war and Kim Jong Un follows through with his vow to end North Korea’s nuclear program, Trump absolutely deserves the Nobel Prize. If Trump wins the prize, that giant popping sound will be leftists’ heads exploding around the world. Extraordinary great things are happening folks.

Given that leftist activist justices are responsible for day-of-birth abortions and same sex marriage, Trump getting conservative Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is huge for rulings based on what truly is in our Constitution. If Justice Kennedy retires as rumored, Trump could put another Constitutional conservative on the court. Awesome!

Americans suffering with high taxes, low wages and high unemployment was Obama’s proud new normal. Trump has dynamited Obama’s mountain of overreaching tyrannical job-killing regulations; reversing over 800. Trump has unemployment at 3.9%, the lowest since 2000. In his first year, Trump created 2 million jobs. His tax cuts has our economy booming; creating more jobs and Americans smiling again with more money in their pockets. https://bit.ly/2HLDyWf Manufacturing jobs have risen to 304,000 under Trump. Black and Hispanic unemployment is at a historic low. All Americans are winning with Trump in the White House.

In defiance of the fake news media’s 24/7 “destroy Trump” propaganda reporting, here is more good news you probably haven’t heard. Two million fewer Americans are on food stamps. Consumer confidence is near a 17 year high. Business confidence is near 1980’s levels. Three million Americans have received bonuses

The Deep State continues to obstruct Trump’s repeal of Obamacare. Nevertheless, Trump has ended Obama’s outrageous tyrannical individual mandate which demanded that Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

The illegal invasion of our country is down 70%, the lowest in 17 years.  Trump has started the border wall

Folks, I could go on and on with Trump’s long list of wins for We the People in a remarkably short amount of time

Bottom line: Be of good cheer folks. As a Christian, I believe the prayers of millions of Americans saved us from anti-God, anti-America and anti-freedom liberal destructive tyranny under Hillary Clinton. God gave us Trump, and he is winning for We the People.

VIDEO: Alleged Child Molester Paid Off in Michigan Teachers Union Negotiation

Project Veritas has released undercover footage and documents obtained from the American Federation of Teachers Michigan affiliate office in Lake City, which reveals that the union protected a teacher after accusations of sexual misconduct with a seven- or eight-year-old girl arose.

This long-awaited release comes after a federal judge ruled in favor of Project Veritas and the First Amendment after Michigan AFT tried twice – and failed twice – to halt the release of the video.

Despite the damning evidence against him, Project Veritas decided to redact the identity of the now former teacher because he was never charged or arrested.

Undercover footage of AFT Union Representative, Johnny Mickles, reveals how AFT and the Lake City Michigan school district defended the alleged child molesting teacher. Redacted documents from the AFT office, available here, corroborate the events.

The alleged charges against the teacher, as memorialized in a Lake City Area Schools document, read:

“It is alleged that [REDACTED] engaged in a course of inappropriate conduct with one of the District’s female students. (Jane Doe) who was aged 7 or 8 at the time…”

According to the police report, the incident occurred some time in 2006, but was not reported until 2013 when the alleged victim happened to become a student of the teacher. Mickles, who represented the teacher, corroborates this in a meeting with a Project Veritas undercover journalist:

“When the student got to his class… apparently all these memories she had suppressed came out… And she went to the superintendent and basically spilled her guts and the superintendent terminated the teacher.”

According to Mickles, the superintendent wanted to terminate the teacher, but the union negotiated a resignation with the district which allowed him to keep his teaching certificate, and included six weeks’ pay and $50,000:

“He was terminated but we negotiated a resignation for him… he didn’t lose his [teaching] certification.”

“… he got to be on leave until they drew up the settlement and then he got, like, the rest of the school year’s pay out… He got about six weeks of pay I think… and then he got a $50,000 pay out.”

In conversations with a separate undercover journalist, the former teacher admitted to the validity of the accusations and the union’s help:

“There was a situation where somebody accused me of something that I didn’t do… So I finally said, you know what, I’m just going to retire…There were no charges. Nothing ever came of it.”

“There was an incident, they said there was a gal that I had dated and she had a daughter and there was an accusation that had something to do with her daughter which wasn’t true.”

The former teacher also explains his experience in dealing with the union’s attorney:

“I mean the attorney told me, ‘hey, in situations where somebody accuses you of something, you might as well- you know what? Chances are they’ll find a way to make it convenient for you to leave.’ That’s what he said.”

James O’Keefe, founder and President of Project Veritas said of the investigation:

“For the record, this former teacher was never charged and never arrested in this case. All we know is that the union, AFT Michigan, and the Lake City Area schools had a problem: A teacher was accused of a serious crime and the solution they came up with was to pay the teacher a bucket of money so he would just go away. If he wanted to go teach somewhere else, so be it. It would be someone else’s problem, and the parent’s would be none the wiser.”

This video comes after the release of two undercover videos of NJEA officials which led to the suspensions of Dr. David Perry, President of the Hamilton Township Education Association and Kathleen Valencia, President of the Union City Education Association. NJ State Democrats including Governor Phil Murphy have called for hearings to investigate the practices of the NJEA.

View the new video HERE.

Vatican: No Deal for Saudi Christians

It sounded too good to be true, and maybe it was. After our story last Friday about the Saudi government striking a deal to build Christian churches, the Vatican is denying that any agreement was made. Reports of the historic pact started in the Egyptian press and soon spread to the West, but church officials now say they’re untrue.

Cardinal Tauren did meet with the Saudi royal family and made his case for treating religious minorities equally. And while Western leaders have been trying to break through on this issue, more work will need to be done.

It seemed plausible, given my own meetings in Egypt and the moderate tone that el Sisi and his administration had taken, that momentum was building for more religious liberty in the area. Hopefully, the news was just premature and an agreement to let Christians worship freely in Saudi Arabia will someday be reality. Until then, we continue to pray for the people like Nawal, who long to live out their faith openly. If you’d like to help minister to her or others, visit Open Doors USA for ways you can get involved.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

NY Times Bites off More than It Can Skew

The Victims of Rho

NY Times Bites off More than It Can Skew

Fake news is alive and well — and thriving on the pages of America’s biggest newspapers. No wonder more people are tuning out the media. They don’t trust it. And outlets like the New York Times aren’t giving them any reason to try.At some point, the Times’s editorial board must have gotten together and decided to reprint every lie ever told about abstinence education. The result was Saturday’s work of fiction, a breathtakingly dishonest, 602-word crime scene of journalism that justifies America’s growing distrust of the press. About the only thing that was accurate about the column was its placement: on the opinion page, where it can’t be passed off as legitimate news.

Still, the editors’ agenda was obvious – discrediting a sex-ed approach that’s popular, effective, and grossly underfunded. They barely got the byline in before the absurdities began, starting with the Times’s insistence that HHS is somehow “advancing an anti-science, ideological agenda” by trying to level the funding field for abstinence. “The department last year prematurely ended grants to some teen pregnancy prevention programs, claiming weak evidence of success. More recently, it set new funding rules that favor an abstinence-only approach,” they complain.

If anyone’s ignoring science, it’s the Times. Barack Obama’s own HHS admitted outright that his contraception-first strategy was a billion-dollar failure. More than 80 percent of the students in his programs fared either worse or no better than their peers. Hardly the stuff of “weak evidence.” According to the last administration, Obama’s approach was a disaster — resulting in more pregnancies, more sexual initiation, and more oral sex1.

Not surprisingly, the Trump administration doesn’t think programs that encourage pregnancy are the wisest use of federal funds. So it rewrote the rules, shifting a very modest amount of money (10 cents of every sex-ed dollar) to the strategy the CDC agrees is working. But even now, HHS’s investment in abstinence isn’t close to what the Times’s preferred programs are getting. Liberal sex-ed still rakes in about $980 million, compared to $100 million for sexual risk avoidance (SRA). Even with the president’s changes, that’s still about a 10:1 ratio in favor of programs that taxpayers don’t want – and more importantly, don’t work!

The editors claim that “The administration’s approach defies all common sense. There is no good evidence that abstinence-only education prevents or delays young people from having sex, leads them to have fewer sexual partners, or reduces rates of teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections.” Did the Times fire all of its fact-checkers? The CDC blew that myth to bits in 2016, explaining that not only does the abstinence message work — it positively affects every area of kids’ lives. “High school students who are virgins rate significantly and consistently better in nearly all health-related behaviors and measures than their sexually active peers.” That includes everything from “bike helmet and seat belt use to substance abuse, diet, doctor’s visits, exercise, and even tanning bed use.” Abstinence education is like one-stop shopping for healthier behavior.

Unfortunately, the Left is too beholden to its culture of permissiveness to listen. For some of them, it’s self-indulgence at all costs — so much so that they’re willing to help kids off a cliff that leads to teen pregnancy and everything that comes with it: financial hardshipschool failure, and depression. They refuse to treat sex like every other risk behavior and discourage it. And ironically, that’s what teenagers want.

In a survey of 18- and 19-year-olds, the Barna Group found that what kids care about is learning how to “understand healthy and unhealthy relationships (65 percent), avoiding sexual assault (64 percent), how alcohol impairs judgment (61 percent), and how to say ‘no’ to sex without losing a relationship (57 percent).” They’re relationship-driven, not sex obsessed. Most of them agree that today’s curriculum pressures them too much to have sex. And those who’ve given in regret it. They don’t think lessons on sexual pleasuring (26 percent) are nearly as important as having the skills to say “no” (63 percent).

That’s another thing the editors misjudge: teenagers’ desire to wait. “[G]iven that almost all Americans engage in premarital sex,” they argue, “this vision of an abstinent-outside-of-marriage world simply at odds with reality.” That’s ridiculous. All Americans don’t engage in premarital sex – and certainly all teenagers don’t. Even the Washington Post points out just how sharply teen sex is declining. Would you believe that about 60 percent of teens haven’t had sex? Most Americans are surprised to hear it – thanks in part to the misinformation campaigns of newspapers like this one. Once they know, Republicans, Democrats, and everyone in between agree: it’s time to teach abstinence.

And the Trump administration is listening. They’re pursuing a bipartisan, evidence-based approach — which is more than I can say for the New York Times.

REFERENCE:

[1] Office of Adolescent Health (2016), Summary of Findings from the TPP Program Grantees (FY2010-2014). Washington, D.C.: HHS. Special issue of American Journal of Public Health, September 2016. 106 (S1):29-S15.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

The Victims of Rho

Vatican: No Deal for Saudi Christians

The Left’s War On Guns Becomes A War On Women

New York City and other leftist cities and states are making it almost impossible for a woman to purchase even the most minimal of defensive measures — leaving them exposed and at the mercy of violent, stronger male criminals with no way to even the odds.

This may not be the intent, but the recoiling of leftists at allowing Americans to own anything that might resemble a weapon is creating the perverse result that women have a hard time finding any defensive tools.

This is where the nonsense notion of keeping all “weaponry” out of the hands of law-abiding citizens has gone — and it is led there by the overwrought reactions to guns.

A friend whose daughter recently graduated from college in New York and moved into the City, realized she was not in a very good neighborhood. She wanted to find some way of protecting herself, so she tried to order online some mace or pepper spray — anything of that nature — and was told they cannot deliver to New York City. Mace is illegal period. Pepper spray is not totally illegal, but New York makes such items very difficult to get through myriad regulations.

There are few things as inherently defensive in nature as pepper spray. Yet it turns out there are several states that have the same types of laws in place, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and New Jersey. This list also includes cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia — all of which have high rates of violent crimes being committed by men and yet leave their women in challenging situations to protect themselves.

Because again, pepper spray is not only inherently defensive, it is largely purchased and carried by women for self-defense. And yet the loudest paragons of the #MeToo movement put up major roadblocks for women to obtain such basic self-defense.

So this talented, pretty young woman moving to NYC is completely at the mercy of men (armed or not) bent on evil, and on the response time of police — once they are called. Like so many other women in all these cities and states, she too easily can find herself at the mercy of powerful criminals, and her own government deprives her of the reasonable ability to defend herself.

There are many examples of vulnerable women in these cities turning to wasp spray and other items for defense, despite the bulky size of those canisters. That’s how desperate they are to be able to defend themselves. Of course by reporting this, places like New York may decide that only licensed pest control professionals can buy and operate wasp spray.

Even if you grant the best of intentions by the Democratic lawmakers running these states and cities, it’s almost as though they purposely ignore the most obvious weapon most men have on women: superior size and strength. If every weapon of every kind were magically removed from planet, most men would still have the ability to physically take advantage of most women at any time.

The leftist retort to this is the police. Well that thin blue line that stands between the bad guys and the rest of us is imperative and most of them do yeoman’s work. But they are definitionally not for individual self-defense unless there is a cop for each person. They are by necessity reactive. It’s what 911 is for. You call, they respond.

So the police cannot be the self-defense that women need, meaning most women are left defenseless in these cities and states.

The equalizers for women have always been weapons, from guns to mace to pepper spray. Yet these equalizers are either banned or made very difficult to obtain.

These items are not protected by the Second Amendment, so they can be — constitutionally, if foolishly — banned or made very difficult to obtain. Guns cannot be banned. But they can be made so difficult to obtain that they are practically speaking banned — for law-abiding residents.

That will be Part II: One man’s ultimately fruitless journey into the endless bowels of obtaining a gun permit in New York City.

PLEASE READ: The Left’s War On Guns Becomes A War On Women (Part II)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured image is of  Corelle Owens posing for a portrait in Decatur, Ga., while holding a Glock 40. Owens is a 45-year-old resident of Mableton, Ga., and flight attendant. She’s among the ranks of the nation’s black women who are learning how to use a firearm, deciding to go to the range and learn how to shoot after her car, phone, tablet and wallet were stolen in March. She’s thinking of purchasing a revolver, considering it an ideal firearm for home protection. Thieves, she said, “they’re armed too so what are you going to do if you don’t have a gun?” She’s intent on perfecting her skills and learning as much as she can on the safest ways to handle a firearm. “I work in a job where safety is paramount and I want to do it the right way.” (AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane). Please subscribe to The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube channel.

The Fiscal Cost of Resettling Refugees in the United States

Report by Matthew O’Brien and Spencer Raley.

Executive Summary

At the end of 2016, the United Nations estimates that a record-setting 65.3 million people had been forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict or persecution. Many of those people will seek refuge in the developed countries of the West, including the United States. Reflecting America’s long tradition of providing refuge to the oppressed, we have admitted over 3.5 million people since 1980 and 96,900 refugees just in the last year in 2016.

As the nation considers what levels of immigration we can fiscally and environmentally sustain, it is important to understand the costs of resettling both refugees (people seeking refugee status abroad) and political asylum seekers (those applying for refugee status from within the United States).

According to a new study released by FAIR, the annual cost to U.S. taxpayers is $1.8 billion and over five years, that financial burden skyrockets to $8.8 billion.

Those figures are only estimates because refugees will access welfare and other government assistance at different rates and the number of refugees entering the U.S also changes from year-to-year.

Using the most recent admissions figures, data on federal and state public assistance programs, and information from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), our analysis found:

  • The cost per refugee to American taxpayers just under $79,600 every year in the first five years after a refugee is resettled in the U.S.;
  • In 2016, the State Department spent nearly $545 million to process and resettle refugees, including $140,389,177 on transportation costs;
  • Of the $1.8 billion in resettlement costs, $867 billion was spent on welfare alone;
  • In their first five years, approximately 54 percent of all refugees will hold jobs that pay less than $11 an hour;
  • $71 million will be spent to educate refugees and asylum-seekers, a majority of which will be paid by state and local governments.
  • Over five years, an estimated 15.7 percent of all refugees will need housing assistance, which is roughly $7,600 per household in 2014 dollars.

It is important to note that this analysis does not address the costs associated with any incurred national security and law enforcement costs associated with some refugees who pose a threat. The total price of additional vetting and screening expenditures, law enforcement and criminal justice costs, and federal homeland security assistance to state and local agencies is hard to quantify.

Introduction

At present, the United Nations estimates that there are approximately 65.3 million people who have been forcibly displaced from their homes by conflict or persecution1. Many of those people will seek refuge in the developed countries of the West, including the United States.

America has a long tradition of providing refuge to the oppressed. We admit both refugees (people seeking refugee status abroad) and political asylees (people requesting refugee status from within the United States).2 And doing so is consistent with our history and our values. But the way in which we integrate refugees/political asylees into our society has changed drastically over the years.

The largest groups of refugees arrived in United States the aftermath of World War II.3 Significant numbers of anti-communist dissidents sought political asylum during the Cold War.4 However, the admission of WWII refugees, and Cold War asylees, took place in an overall context of very low immigration.5 And, until the 1980’s most refugee assistance was provided through private networks of charitable ethnic and religious groups that provided both financial assistance and help in assimilating to the American way of life.6 Many Americans contributed generously to those groups but their contributions were voluntary. Under the current model, taxpayers are involuntarily bankrolling the significant costs that resettling refugees and asylees imposes on the citizens of the United States.

Since 1980, the United States has admitted over 3.5 million people seeking refuge.7 We continue to admit refugees at a rate of roughly 50,000 to 100,000 refugees per year8 and 20,000-50,000 political asylees per year.9 Most of this cohort arrives here without financial resources and possessing few marketable job skills. And the American taxpayer is being asked to feed, clothe and shelter them, in addition to funding job training programs.10

Most refugee/asylee resettlement expenditures come in the form of cash assistance, welfare programs and other social services. Federal welfare programs that refugees and asylees can access include the following:

  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) formerly known as AFDC
  • Medicaid
  • Food Stamps
  • Public Housing
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
  • Social Security Disability Insurance
  • Child Care and Development Fund
  • Job Opportunities for Low Income Individuals (JOLI)
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Postsecondary Education Loans and Grants
  • Refugee Assistance Programs
  • Earned Income Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit11

State and local welfare programs that refugees and asylees can apply for include but are not limited to:

  • Housing assistance
  • English as a Second Language programs
  • Special education programs
  • Job training and employment search assistance
  • Social services programs
  • Immigration assistance programs (aiding asylees in filing green card applications, citizenship applications, and petitions for relatives to immigrate to the U.S.)12

Eligibility for some of these programs expires seven years after an individual is admitted to the United States as a refugee or asylee. However, many welfare programs are available for as long as a refugee/asylee resides in the United States.13

Additionally, the U.S. incurs significant expenses before refugees even get here: vetting applicants for refugee status, processing immigration applications and transporting approved applicants to the United States. Asylum seekers may cost taxpayers even more, considering they are present in the United States when they apply for protection. Because of this, they are entitled, as a matter of law, to a hearing on their asylum claim before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an additional hearing before the U.S. Immigration Court if the government intends to deny their claim, and an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Funding all of these programs places a heavy burden on the public treasury. Below is FAIR’s estimate of the calculable cost, per refugee/asylee, for their first five years in the United States.

NB: Both refugees and political asylees are admitted to the United States based on the definition of refugee found at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a). The major difference between the two statuses is that applicants for refugee status are abroad, applicants for political asylum are at the U.S. border or within the United States. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, FAIR uses the term “refugee” to refer to both traditional refugees and political asylees (unless otherwise specified).

Methodology

When calculating refugee costs, it is important to understand that the usage of various federal assistance and benefit programs is far from static. Welfare usage by refugees typically decreases the longer they reside in the country. However, even after five years, the rate at which refugees use public assistance programs is still much higher than the overall national average. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) releases up to five years’ worth data on the use of welfare programs by refugees in their annual report to Congress. To find a consistent annual rate, we calculate the average rate of usage based on the available data during that allotted five-year period.

In addition to varying welfare usage rates, the number of refugees entering the U.S also changes from year-to-year. We base our calculations on the most recent admissions data. As such, if the United States decides to increase the total number refugees it admits on an annual basis, these costs will increase. Unanticipated surges in the number of individuals admitted as refugees commonly occur in response to geopolitical events.

After determining how many refugees are likely to use a welfare benefit, we then multiply this number by the annual average benefit to find the mean yearly cost to U.S taxpayers. We conservatively estimate that amount of public assistance received by refugees each year is roughly equal to the overall national average.

In contrast to welfare expenses, the majority of specifically budgeted federal costs associated with refugees occurs during the initial resettlement phase. This includes costs such as transportation, processing, reception, placement, and programs designed to help entrants find employment and welfare benefits. For simplicity, we break these costs up and include them in the annual cost over five years.

Unless otherwise noted, we draw all statistics relating to the overall number of refugees utilizing specific welfare programs from ORR’s latest Annual Report to Congress, compiled at the end of fiscal year 2015.14The total number of refugees and asylees is also derived from the ORR’s latest figures.

Federal Budgeted Costs to Refugees/Asylees – $777,443,000

Education Costs for Refugees/Asylees $71,275,000

In 2015, FAIR estimated that education costs for students with limited English proficiency (LEP) averaged out to $12,128 across the nation, compared to $10,763 for non-LEP students.24 Nearly 90 percent of all refugees and asylees who entered the United States in FY2011 were not fluent in English. That number improved to 58 percent by the end of FY2015, averaging out to approximately 75 percent throughout the FY2011 – FY2015 period.25

Based on immigration data from The Migration Policy Institute, and understanding that most (but not all) UAMs are covered by funding that is separate from the refugee program, it appears that approximately 10 percent of admitted refugees will enroll in a public school.26 Assuming the cost to educate LEP students in the United States remains mostly unchanged since 2015, that would make the cost of educating new refugees approximately $71,275,000 annually over their first five years in country.

Taxation Calculations-$215,386,500

According to ORR, refugee’s earnings are meager throughout their first five years in the United States, increasing from $10.22/hour to $10.86/ hour – only a 6.3 percent increase over five years, on average. This means they are unlikely to pay any federal income taxes, and could end up receiving a net credit from the federal government when programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit are considered.

Furthermore, their state and local income tax contributions will be also negligible, after any returns. This is largely because approximately 15 percent of all recent refugees have been settled in states with no income tax, and more than half come from states where the state tax rate for low-income filers is 4.5 percent or lower, based on data from the Pew Research Center27 and the Tax Foundation.28

However, based on unemployment and labor participation data from ORR, an average of approximately 54 percent of all refugees will participate in the workplace during their first five years in the country. Their average income will come out to just over $21,000 per year, based on ORR data.

Accordingly, we estimate that the average state and local income tax contribution per working refugee comes out to $843, annually, or just over $4,200 over five years. This totals roughly $215.4 million in state income tax payments overall. However, these relatively low payments do not cover the costs of cash programs and services received by refugees.

There are other, less substantial rebates and credits for which refugees are eligible. Additionally, there many more state and local assistance programs through which refugees may receive taxpayer-funded payouts, especially once they’ve resided within the United States for an extended period of time. It is also likely that there are certain other state and local taxes that refugees pay. However, due to the lack of available data, we are unable to integrate those numbers into our overall calculations. And, in any case, it is virtually certain that such data would simply show that the refugee program is even more expensive than is presumed by most estimates.

The purpose of our benefits vs. taxation calculations is not to provide an exact cost associated with the admission of large numbers of refugees (even if it were possible to do so). Rather, our intention is to demonstrate that the majority of readily available data clearly indicates that the refugee program, as it is currently constructed, is a net drain on the United States’ economy and represents an ever-increasing burden on the American taxpayer.

Conclusions

    • Based on the above data, refugees (including recipients of political asylum) cost American taxpayers nearly $1.8 billion, annually, or approximately $8.8 billion over five years.
  • This totals $15,900 per refugee, annually, or just under $79,600 per refugee over their first five years in America.

While the United States certainly has an interest in assisting those who are truly in dire straights, it is now doing so in a manner that is increasing the already crushing burden that state, local and federal governments impose on American taxpayers. Most of the charitable ethnic and religious groups which once helped to assimilate refugees into our way of life have morphed into contractors who earn significant sums of money by billing the government for services provided to refugees. Therefore, these groups have a vested interest in keeping refugee numbers high. And taxpayers are footing the bill.

In addition, refugees are often resettled in small to mid-sized communities without any attempt to consult with local political officials, educational administrators or public safety officers. This results in additional strains on already tight school, public health and social services budgets as communities attempt to cope with a rapid influx of individuals who may lack the language, cultural and job skills needed to integrate into the life of American cities and towns.

Increasingly, some refugees also pose national security and public safety costs that are difficult to quantify. These include vetting and screening expenditures, law enforcement and criminal justice costs, and federal homeland security assistance to state and local agencies. They also include funding for intelligence community agencies, which play an increasingly important role in checking the background of refugees who come from countries with significant terrorist activity.

America is currently faced with massive budget deficits, a tense global security climate, and an economy that, while improving, is still experiencing growing pains. Accordingly, government policy should shift away from relocating refugees to the United States. The costs, both fiscal and social, outweigh the benefits provided to a relatively small portion of the overall refugee population in the world.

Instead, the U.S. should begin using its considerable economic, diplomatic and military influence to de-escalate the conflicts that give rise to refugees. In situations where de-escalation is not possible, the U.S. should provide direct assistance to refugees within, or nearby, their country of origin, rather than relocating them to the United States. These alternatives are both more cost-effective – up to 10 times cheaper29 – and safer for the American public, than resettling refugees in the United States. They would also allow the United States to compassionately help hundreds of thousands more refugees on an annual basis, without continuing to add to the already high costs of immigration currently being borne by American taxpayers.

RELATED ARTICLE: Catholic Charities of Minnesota drops refugee program; will take care of poor and homeless already among us

Footnotes and endnotes

[1] Adrian Edwards, “Global Forced Displacement Hits Record High,” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, June 20, 2016, http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2016/6/5763b65a4/global-forced-displacement-hits-record-high.html
[2] Both refugees and political asylees are admitted to the United States based on the definition of refugee found at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a). The major difference between the two statuses is that applicants for refugee status are abroad, applicants for political asylum are at the U.S. border or within the United States. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience, unless otherwise specified, FAIR uses the term “refugee” to refer to both traditional refugees and political asylees.
[3] Milan Kubic, “A Refugee Looks Back: What the 1940’s Teach Us About Today’s Crisis,” Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2016, https://wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/the-post-obama-world/a-refugee-looks-back-what-the-1940s-teach-us-about-todays-crisis/
[4] Lisa Reynolds Wolfe, “Immigration to the U.S. During the Cold War,” Cold War Studies, September 22, 2016, https://coldwarstudies.com/2016/09/22/immigration-to-the-us-during-the-cold-war/
[5] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Agency History: Post-War Years,” https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/post-war-years
[6] Xiaojin Zhao, “Immigration to the United States After 1945,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, July 2016, http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-72#ref_acrefore-9780199329175-e-72-note-12
[7] Office of Immigration Statistics, “2015 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, December 2016, p. 43, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Yearbook_Immigration_Statistics_2015.pdf
[8] Jens Manuel Krogstad, Jynnah Radford, “Key Facts About Refugees to the U.S.,” Pew Research Center – Fact Tank, January 30,2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/
[9] Jie Zong, Jeanne Batalova, “Refugees and Asylees in the United States,” MPI – Migration Information Source, June 7 2017, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states
[10] Kerry Picket, “U.S. Government to Offer Each New Refugee Thousands of Dollars in Social Services and Cash,” The Daily Caller, September 18, 2015, http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/18/each-refugee-to-be-offered-thousands-of-dollars-in-tax-payer-assistance-and-welfare-for-years/
[11] Jennifer Mayorga, Ann Morse, “The U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program: A Primer for Policy Makers,” National Conference of State Legislatures, December 4, 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/the-u-s-refugee-resettlement-program-a-primer-for-policymakers.aspx#6
[12] For a complete list of programs and services, by state, see: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – Office of Refugee Resettlement, “Find Resources and Contacts in Your State,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/state-programs-annual-overview
[13] “Refugee Resettlement Fact Sheet,” Refugee Resettlement Watch, June 20, 2013, https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/refugee-resettlement-fact-sheets/
[14] Office of Refugee Resettlement, “Annual Report to Congress,” Fiscal Year 2015, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/arc_15_final_508.pdf
[15] Ibid
[16] Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, “FY 2016 Summary of Major Activities,” https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265231.pdf
[17] International Organization for Migration, United States, “Refugee Travel Loans,” https://www.iom.int/countries/united-states-america#rtl
[18] The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Medicaid Spending per Enrollee (Full or Partial Benefit,” FY 2014, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-spending-per-enrollee/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
[19] Ife Floyd, “TANF Cash Benefits Have Fallen by More than 20 percent in Most States and Continue to Erode,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October, 2017, https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-cash-benefits-have-fallen-by-more-than-20-percent-in-most-states
[20] Social Security Administration, “SSI Federal Payment amounts for 2018,” FY 2018, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSI.html
[21] Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, “Refugee Cash Assistance,” https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/refugee-cash-assistance
[22] Liz Schott, “State General Assistance Programs are Weakening Despite Increased Need,” Center for Budge and Policy Priorities, July, 2015, https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/state-general-assistance-programs-are-weakening-despite-increased
[23] Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Housing Assistance for Low-Income Households,” September, 2015, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn.pdf
[24] Spencer Raley, Marc Ferris, “The Elephant in the Classroom: Mass Immigration’s Impact on Public Education,” The Federation for American Immigration Reform, September, 2016, https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/elephant-classroom-mass-immigrations-impact-public-education
[25] Op. Cite. ORR Budget
[26] Jie Zong, Jeanne Batalova, “Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States,” Migration Policy Institute, March, 2017, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states#Demographic
[27] Jynnah Radford, Phillip Connor, “Just 10 States Resettled More than Half of Recent Refugees to U.S.,” Pew Research Center, December, 2016, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/06/just-10-states-resettled-more-than-half-of-recent-refugees-to-u-s/
[28] Nicole Kaeding, “State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2016,” Tax Foundation, February, 2016, a href=”https://taxfoundation.org/state-individual-income-tax-rates-and-brackets-2016/”>https://taxfoundation.org/state-individual-income-tax-rates-and-brackets-2016/
[29] Rob Williams, “Syrian Refugees Will Cost Ten Times More to Care for in Europe than in Neighboring Countries,” The Independent, March, 2016, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syrian-refugees-will-cost-ten-times-more-to-care-for-in-europe-than-in-neighboring-countries-a6928676.html