Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees
Source: New York Times
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and SOMINI SENGUPTA SEPT. 18, 2017
WASHINGTON Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
The draft report, which was obtained by The New York Times, contradicts a central argument made by advocates of deep cuts in refugee totals as President Trump faces an Oct. 1 deadline to decide on an allowable number. The issue has sparked intense debate within his administration as opponents of the program, led by Mr. Trumps chief policy adviser, Stephen Miller, assert that continuing to welcome refugees is too costly and raises concerns about terrorism.
Advocates of the program inside and outside the administration say refugees are a major benefit to the United States, paying more in taxes than they consume in public benefits, and filling jobs in service industries that others will not. But research documenting their fiscal upside prepared for a report mandated by Mr. Trump in a March presidential memorandum implementing his travel ban never made its way to the White House. Some of those proponents believe the report was suppressed.
The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.
-snip-
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)don't like. What an appalling way to run a nation.
janterry
(4,429 posts)and then they paint real facts as 'alternative' facts.
My teenager and I used to like to talk about politics and policy. But now she gets angry every time I turn on the news. She feels like it's all a mess and she just doesn't want to hear it anymore.
I can't blame her. I have some hope - but it's *far* down the road.
Solly Mack
(90,767 posts)I'd scream if I thought it would do any good.
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)and cling to their small-minded prejudices. Pathetic.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)dhill926
(16,339 posts)riversedge
(70,218 posts)vindictiveness and racism!