President Donald Trump last year advocated dropping the refugee cap as low as 5,000 people, down from 50,000, according to a former administration official – a cut far more drastic than even his most hawkish adviser, Stephen Miller, proposed at the time.
Ultimately, the administration restricted to 45,000 the flow of refugees into the U.S. this fiscal year – the lowest since the program began in 1980, and less than half the target of 110,000 that President Barack Obama set in his last planning cycle.
But the discussion set the terms of the administration’s refugee policymaking. Now Miller and a group of like-minded aides are pressing to reduce drastically the number of people entering the U.S., both legally and illegally.
The immigration hawks are moving forward despite the blowback they got over their imposition of a “zero tolerance” prosecution policy at the southern border that resulted in the separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration officials and outside White House advisers.
One Republican close to the White House and a former White House official familiar with the discussions predicted the cap could fall as low as 15,000 in 2019, continuing a contraction of overall immigration, both legal and illegal. A tiny group of key administration officials led by the National Security Council’s Mira Ricardel were planning to meet Friday to debate the coming year’s refugee cap. Late Thursday, however, a White House official said the meeting about refugees had been postponed. It is not yet determined when it will be rescheduled.
“Inside the Washington beltway, this is a numbers game that’s being carried out by people who don’t care about refugees and are orienting this to their base,” said Anne Richard, who was assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration in the Obama administration
Miller, a policy adviser to Trump since the campaign and, before that, an aide to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions, has made immigration his signature issue. White House officials are loath to cross him given his passion for the subject and his close relationship with the president, according to people familiar with dynamics inside the administration.
“Miller is not deterred,” said one Republican close to the White House. “He is an adamant believer in stopping any immigration, and the president thinks it plays well with his base.”
Miller declined to comment. A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
Behind the scenes, Miller, 32, has been contacting every relevant Cabinet secretary to convey his interpretation of the president’s thoughts on the refugee cap in an effort to sway the decision, said a former White House official familiar with the discussions.
The wild card is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. No one is quite sure where he stands on the matter – but his State Department is stocked with Miller allies, including deputy assistant secretary of state Andrew Veprek and John Zadrozny, who’s been named to Pompeo’s policy planning staff.
“Is Pompeo going to let his department be used by Miller as an arm of the Domestic Policy Council?” asked the former White House official. “Is he going to take his marching orders from a thirtysomething who’s orchestrated a hostile takeover? This is the moment for Pompeo to show that he is running his own show over there.”
When asked for comment, a State Department official said “each year the president makes an annual determination, after appropriate consultation with Congress, regarding the refugee admissions ceiling for the following fiscal year. That determination is expected to be made prior to the start of fiscal year 2019 on October 1, 2018.”
The refugee cap is just one of several hawkish policies that Miller and his like-minded allies throughout the federal agencies are pursuing on immigration. Through rule-making and executive authority, the Trump administration continues to explore ways to narrow asylum eligibility requirements; to detain together families who cross the border illegally; and to reduce the number of people who acquire legal immigration status through “cancellation of removal” – one of the few avenues left for certain undocumented immigrants.
Inside the country, the Miller cadre intends to make life more difficult for undocumented immigrants already living and working here. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said another Republican close to the White House, intends to continue with its increased focus on worksite enforcement.
This long laundry list of policies to reduce immigration comes on the heels of the “zero-tolerance” policy, which the administration effectively ended following outcry from conservative religious leaders, Republican lawmakers, and even many White House staffers. The administration is now under a federal court order to reunify the parents and children that it separated as a result of the policy.
Miller was distraught in the aftermath of the zero tolerance fiasco, said two Republicans close to the White House. He considered zero tolerance an essential component to his efforts to deter immigration. For his troubles, he got heckled at D.C. restaurants, prompting him in one instance angrily to pitch $80 worth of takeout sushi into a trash bin. Protesters showed up at his apartment complex chanting, “Stephen Miller/ You’re a villain/ Locking up/ innocent children.”
But Miller and other immigration hardliners quickly recovered, and have continued to hold under-the-radar meetings to pursue policies that already are altering the U.S.’s self-perception as a nation of immigrants. White House chief of staff John Kelly is broadly supportive of these efforts, and Miller has been careful to keep his plans fairly secret, speaking only infrequently in larger White House meetings, according to two Republicans close to the White House.
Despite signing an executive order that largely reversed the zero tolerance policy that Miller championed, Trump strongly supports Miller’s efforts because he views immigration as a winning political issue as he heads into the 2018 midterms–one that puts Democrats on the defensive.
“On the political side of things, the Democrats have put themselves now in more peril than ever,” a White House official told POLITICO in June during the height of the family separations. “Through their uninformed, highly inaccurate hysteria, they have elevated the issue of immigration and border security to the forefront of the mid-terms, and this is a much better issue for Republicans. So the reality is they are turning off a lot of swing voters, and they are also motivating a lot of Republican-leaning moderate and conservative voters to go out and vote.”
A recent Gallup poll found the share of Republicans who agreed that immigration was the country’s most important problem doubled at the height of the administration’s family separations policy. In July, 35 percent of Republicans called it a top issue, up from 17 percent in May.
The question remains whether the increased Republican interest in immigration represented support for or opposition to Trump’s family separations policy. A strong majority of Republican voters — 76 percent — approved of how Trump handled family separations at the border, according to a Quinnipiac University pollfrom early July. But the same poll found a similar percentage of Republicans — 70 percent — agreeing that the Trump administration must be held responsible for reunifying separated parents and children.
In Republican congressional primaries, candidates have adopted Trump’s tone on immigration, but no one knows how that will play in the general election, according to Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican strategist and Trump critic.
“It pleases Donald Trump, it pleases a certain portion of the base,” Wilson said. “But it’s not without its own downside risks.” Among these, he said, is alienating suburban women and Hispanic voters. “You’re holding onto a base you were going to hold onto anyway.”
Limiting refugee numbers may also upset religious groups that historically have handled resettlement for the government. If the Trump administration opts for a lower refugee ceiling, that may also scale back funding to the nine religious and charity agencies that facilitate the process nationwide.
The State Department’s refugee bureau signaled a possible spending drawdown in a March request for resettlement proposals, saying it “expects to fund a smaller number of recipient agencies” in fiscal year 2019.
Refugee organizations will lobby Pompeo, publicly and privately, to defend the program. The secretary praised “the strength, courage, and resilience of millions of refugees worldwide” during World Refugee Day in June, but also is considering the possible elimination of the department’s refugee office.
“The refugee resettlement program is about so much more than just saving lives,” said Melanie Nezer, senior vice president of public affairs at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a resettlement agency. “It’s also a diplomatic tool, it’s a foreign policy tool, it stabilizes countries that are hosting the refugees.”
The United Nations refugee agency has identified 1.4 million refugees worldwide in need of resettlement, of whom only a small number are placed each year. In 2017, for instance, the U.N. sent just 75,000 refugees to receiving nations for resettlement, according to an annual report.
Kay Bellor, a vice president with the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said refugees could be stranded in host countries such as Turkey and Lebanon if the U.S. doesn’t open its doors.
“They’re languishing in refugee camps, their kids are not getting educated, they’re not contributing economically. It’s a pretty horrible situation,” she said. “You’re going to warehouse people who otherwise would be able to move on with their lives.”
Bellor added that it would send a “terrible signal” to host countries. “It’s hard to imagine how this might impact their response,” she said.
The Trump administration argued last year that refugee resources should be shifted to reduce the backlog of asylum seekers in the U.S., which stood at more than 300,000 cases in January.
Nezer doesn’t accept that rationale. “There’s no credible evidence that getting rid of the program serves any purpose other than to keep people out,” she said.
*********************************************
Will the asylum system, which is created by statute, and the withholding of removal system, which is guaranteed by statute enforcing an international treaty obligation, be “the last stand of America” as country that respects human rights and the rule of law?
Perhaps asylum will continue; but, not if Jeff Sessions has anything to say about it. He’s actively in the process of “deconstructing” U.S. asylum law and reducing it to nothing.
This Congress won’t stop him. Will the Article III Courts? While they have been critical of many aspects of the BIA’s performance and Sessions’s border policies, they have been avoiding the real issue: How can you have Due Process of law in a system run by an overt White Nationalist xenophobic racist with no respect for the Constitution, human dignity, or the rule of law and who publicly favors one party, the DHS. Not much respect for the Article IIIs either as shown by the flippant, disrespectful, disingenuous “in your face judge” response to Judge Sabraw by Sessions’s DOJ lawyers in the “child separation” case. (Judge not amused; more on that later.)
If the Article IIIs, including the spineless Supremes, don’t have the courage to stand up to this authoritarian scofflaw Administration on the immigration charade that is unfolding right now, they might find themselves swallowed up by the Trump Swamp themselves. And, I don’t know who will be “willing or able” to throw them a lifeline.
