Canada resettled more refugees than the U.S. for the first time. That's shameful and unconscionable, America.

For the first time since 1980, the U.S. doesn't lead the world in refugee resettlement numbers.

The U.N. states, "A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so."

Refugees differ from asylum seekers in that refugees' claims have already been verified. Asylum seekers only gain refugee status after their asylum claims have been vetted and been determined to be legitimate. Refugees are the people we know can't go home.

The United States has a long history of refugee resettlement. Up until 2017, the U.S. resettled more refugees each year than the rest of the world combined.

Now, for the first time since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed, we no longer lead the world in that category. In 2018, Canada settled more refugees than the U.S. by about 20%—28,000 resettlements to our 23,000. Canada, as a reminder, has one-tenth the population of the U.S. and its economy is about one-tenth the size of ours.


Per capita, Canada actually resettled more than ten times as many refugees as the U.S.—around 750 refugees per million residents to our 70 per million. Australia (510 per million), Sweden (493 per million) and Norway (465 per million) also had much higher per capita resettlement figures than the U.S.

This is not winning.

Despite a booming economy and dire global need, the U.S. has slashed its refugee resettlement numbers by more than 75% in the past three years.

Since 1975, the U.S. government's resettlement program has settled some 3 million refugees—that works out to an average of 75,000 per year.

Until recently, the lowest annual number resettled until recently was 2002, when around 27,000 refugees were admitted. (That was the year following 9/11, when the U.S. was understandably on super high security alert.)

Pew Research Center

In 2016, we welcomed 97,000. That number plummeted to 33,000 in 2017 and to 23,000 in 2018.

According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), there are close to 26 million refugees right now—the largest number the world has ever seen—and half them are children. The U.S. resettlement of 23,000 accounts for less than .01 percent of the total number of people awaiting resettlement, who are living in overcrowded refugee camps or stuck in limbo in stopover countries.

Our current approach to refugees is embarrassing, and a shameful stain on our country's legacy. I mean, we welcomed more refugees immediately following the worst terror attack in history than we did last year. The need is greater than ever, our economy is booming, and yet we are closing our doors in the faces of desperate families who have nowhere to go.

Gross. We are better than this, America.

As a reminder, the data shows that refugees do not drain our resources, nor do they pose a threat to our safety.

The main reasons I see people argue against resettling more refugees are "We can't afford it," and "A terrorist might slip in." Neither of those arguments hold up, though.

Research shows that, even after accounting for the initial cost of getting them settled, refugees have a neutral-to-beneficial effect on the economy. In other words, over time they create more revenue than it costs to bring them in. Since immigrants in general tend to start more businesses than the average American-born citizen, refugees are actually more likely to add jobs and boost the economy.

Regarding safety, the refugee resettlement program is the longest, hardest, and least likely way to get into the United States. Most refugees don't get to choose their country of resettlement, and the ones who come to the U.S. are the most thoroughly vetted people to set foot in our country. You'd have to be a really dumb terrorist to try to slip in through the refugee resettlement program, which is why the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack by a refugee on U.S. soil is a whopping 1 in 3.64 billion.

There's no good reason for our refugee resettlement numbers to be slashed when there are more people in need than ever before. If the government really doesn't want to fund it, why don't they create a private refugee sponsor program like Canada has?

We can't offer a safe haven for everyone, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help as many as we can—and we can definitely do a lot more than we are doing right now.

UNHCR's global trends in forced displacement – 2018 figures www.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

That first car is a rite of passage into adulthood. Specifically, the hard-earned lesson of expectations versus reality. Though some of us are blessed with Teslas at 17, most teenagers receive a car that’s been … let’s say previously loved. And that’s probably a good thing, considering nearly half of first-year drivers end up in wrecks. Might as well get the dings on the lemon, right?

Of course, wrecks aside, buying a used car might end up costing more in the long run after needing repairs, breaking down and just a general slew of unexpected surprises. But hey, at least we can all look back and laugh.

My first car, for example, was a hand-me-down Toyota of some sort from my mother. I don’t recall the specific model, but I definitely remember getting into a fender bender within the first week of having it. She had forgotten to get the brakes fixed … isn’t that a fun story?

Jimmy Fallon recently asked his “Tonight Show” audience on Twitter to share their own worst car experiences. Some of them make my brake fiasco look like cakewalk (or cakedrive, in this case). Either way, these responses might make us all feel a little less alone. Or at the very least, give us a chuckle.

Here are 22 responses with the most horsepower:

Keep Reading Show less

TikTok about '80s childhood is a total Gen X flashback.

As a Gen X parent, it's weird to try to describe my childhood to my kids. We're the generation that didn't grow up with the internet or cell phones, yet are raising kids who have never known a world without them. That difference alone is enough to make our 1980s childhoods feel like a completely different planet, but there are other differences too that often get overlooked.

How do you explain the transition from the brown and orange aesthetic of the '70s to the dusty rose and forest green carpeting of the '80s if you didn't experience it? When I tell my kids there were smoking sections in restaurants and airplanes and ashtrays everywhere, they look horrified (and rightfully so—what were we thinking?!). The fact that we went places with our friends with no quick way to get ahold of our parents? Unbelievable.

One day I described the process of listening to the radio, waiting for my favorite song to come on so I could record it on my tape recorder, and how mad I would get when the deejay talked through the intro of the song until the lyrics started. My Spotify-spoiled kids didn't even understand half of the words I said.

And '80s hair? With the feathered bangs and the terrible perms and the crunchy hair spray? What, why and how?

Keep Reading Show less

"Veteran" mom and "new" mom parent differently.

When a couple has their first child, they start out with the greatest of intentions and expectations. The child will only eat organic food. They will never watch TV or have screen time and will always stay clean.

But soon, reality sets in and if they have more kids, they'll probably be raised with a lot less attention. As a result, first-born kids turn out a bit differently than their younger siblings.

"Rules are a bit more rigid, attention and validation is directed and somewhat excessive," Niro Feliciano, LCSW, a psychotherapist and anxiety specialist, told Parents. "As a result, firstborns tend to be leaders, high achievers, people-pleasing, rule-following and conscientious, several of the qualities that tend to predict success."

Keep Reading Show less