Refugees and Immigration: What does good look like?

[R7ehr]

So what are we to make of these graphs? Catholic immigrants are better for the economy than Muslim immigrants are?
That the US doesn’t give as much handouts as Denmark does?

[Bootstrap]

So what are we to make of these graphs? Catholic immigrants are better for the economy than Muslim immigrants are?
That the US doesn’t give as much handouts as Denmark does?

I think people can have different opinions about how to read these. But perhaps this is a useful insight: immigrants can help a country, but not always, and some help the country more than others. Some people may take extreme views on both sides - "all immigrants always help the economy no matter how many there are" versus "all immigrants are bad". The truth is more complex.

Often, economic migration is allowed when it is considered a win/win, where both the immigrant and the country benefit. As opposed to refugees, who are admitted because of their need.

[R7ehr]

Texas and Texans love to tout how many people are migrating to Texas from other states. (I just saw something on LinkedIn about Texas, which prompted this.)

And States in general, like to boast when they receive more people than they lose. Obviously, they are saying that their state is doing things right, and as proof, people want to move there. Which makes sense. And we can carbon copy that simple fact to the USA as well.

However, what is missing, is any notion or rhetoric from Texas (and Florida) that these national migrants are bad for their economy. Yes, Texas, Idaho, Tennessee all are concerned about Californians bringing liberal policies with them. But that is not the same as being concerned that they are going to hurt their economy. They seem to understand that a strong influx of national migrants are good for their economy.

[Jazman]

Texas and Texans love to tout how many people are migrating to Texas from other states. (I just saw something on LinkedIn about Texas, which prompted this.)

And States in general, like to boast when they receive more people than they lose. Obviously, they are saying that their state is doing things right, and as proof, people want to move there. Which makes sense. And we can carbon copy that simple fact to the USA as well.

However, what is missing, is any notion or rhetoric from Texas (and Florida) that these national migrants are bad for their economy. Yes, Texas, Idaho, Tennessee all are concerned about Californians bringing liberal policies with them. But that is not the same as being concerned that they are going to hurt their economy. They seem to understand that a strong influx of national migrants are good for their economy.

And don't these states also have a lot of international immigrants as well? (Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, etc?) Feels again like the "rules for you because your blue, but not for us..." tendency

[JohnH]

And don't these states also have a lot of international immigrants as well? (Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, etc?) Feels again like the "rules for you because your blue, but not for us..." tendency

Last I heard, ICE is quite active in these states and has deported many people. Are you saying they shouldn't, or are you saying that they should deport more?

[JohnH]

I think people can have different opinions about how to read these. But perhaps this is a useful insight: immigrants can help a country, but not always, and some help the country more than others. Some people may take extreme views on both sides - "all immigrants always help the economy no matter how many there are" versus "all immigrants are bad". The truth is more complex.

Yes, some immigration is a win-win, and some is a lose-lose. Some immigration ends up benefiting a very narrow class of people (usually the ultra-wealhy) and hurts everyone else, including the migrants themselves.

Often, economic migration is allowed when it is considered a win/win, where both the immigrant and the country benefit. As opposed to refugees, who are admitted because of their need.

Yes, and because of the obvious burden that refugees end up placing, there need to be sensible limits on how much of that burden the rest of the country has to bear. We already have plenty of people in America who are poor, have difficulty finding and keeping a good job, and can't afford housing. It seems like it is not "protecting the vulnerable" to make them even more impoverished so that more refugees can be brought in, particularly when the agencies and non-profit employees and executives involved in bringing in refugees are the recipients of billions of dollars.

Let's take a look at one of these agencies, Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service, also known as Global Refuge:
https://www.globalrefuge.org/wp-content ... C-COPY.pdf

They received around $229 million in grants. That's a lot of money. Let's see how much their executives got paid:

Krish O'Mara Vignarajah got paid about $642,000. That's a very big salary & bonus. I question why anyone working for a "nonprofit" needs such a big salary.

She previously served in the Obama White House as Policy Director for First Lady Michelle Obama and at the State Department as Senior Advisor under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Krish has committed her career to public service because she knows how differently life could have turned out. She was 9 months old when she and her family escaped a country on the brink of civil war and built a life in Maryland. Her parents came to this country with no jobs and $200 in their pockets.

She's doing pretty well to have gone from no job and $200 in her parents' pockets to now having her hands in the American public's pockets to the tune of a salary of $1,750 per day.

The executive in charge of fundraising (VP of Development), Andrew Steele, got a salary & bonus of about $218,000. That's also a pretty big salary.

So, where did all these funds come from? Individual donors? Nope, $221 million from government grants. In other words, the American people have been the ones paying these hefty salaries. (Non-government contributions were just 3% of their total contributions.)

So when I hear that "we need to do more for refugees", I see that we've actually already done plenty - and I question the people with six-figure salaries and bonuses asking Americans who make far less money to dig deeper into their pockets and bear even more of the burden.

[Ernie]

I think people can have different opinions about how to read these. But perhaps this is a useful insight: immigrants can help a country, but not always, and some help the country more than others. Some people may take extreme views on both sides - "all immigrants always help the economy no matter how many there are" versus "all immigrants are bad". The truth is more complex.

Yes, some immigration is a win-win, and some is a lose-lose. Some immigration ends up benefiting a very narrow class of people (usually the ultra-wealhy) and hurts everyone else, including the migrants themselves.

Often, economic migration is allowed when it is considered a win/win, where both the immigrant and the country benefit. As opposed to refugees, who are admitted because of their need.

Yes, and because of the obvious burden that refugees end up placing, there need to be sensible limits on how much of that burden the rest of the country has to bear. We already have plenty of people in America who are poor, have difficulty finding and keeping a good job, and can't afford housing. It seems like it is not "protecting the vulnerable" to make them even more impoverished so that more refugees can be brought in, particularly when the agencies and non-profit employees and executives involved in bringing in refugees are the recipients of billions of dollars.

Let's take a look at one of these agencies, Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service, also known as Global Refuge:
https://www.globalrefuge.org/wp-content ... C-COPY.pdf

They received around $229 million in grants. That's a lot of money. Let's see how much their executives got paid:

Krish O'Mara Vignarajah got paid about $642,000. That's a very big salary & bonus. I question why anyone working for a "nonprofit" needs such a big salary.

She previously served in the Obama White House as Policy Director for First Lady Michelle Obama and at the State Department as Senior Advisor under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Krish has committed her career to public service because she knows how differently life could have turned out. She was 9 months old when she and her family escaped a country on the brink of civil war and built a life in Maryland. Her parents came to this country with no jobs and $200 in their pockets.

She's doing pretty well to have gone from no job and $200 in her parents' pockets to now having her hands in the American public's pockets to the tune of a salary of $1,750 per day.

The executive in charge of fundraising (VP of Development), Andrew Steele, got a salary & bonus of about $218,000. That's also a pretty big salary.

So, where did all these funds come from? Individual donors? Nope, $221 million from government grants. In other words, the American people have been the ones paying these hefty salaries. (Non-government contributions were just 3% of their total contributions.)

So when I hear that "we need to do more for refugees", I see that we've actually already done plenty - and I question the people with six-figure salaries and bonuses asking Americans who make far less money to dig deeper into their pockets and bear even more of the burden.

That is definitely a broken system.

[Bootstrap]

That is definitely a broken system.

The way John described it sure does sound broken. I did some fact checking.

Resettlement agencies typically receive about $3,000 to $8,000 per refugee in operational funding, total. Nearly all of that pays for staff, housing setup, compliance, and services. That amount includes a one-time Reception and Placement (R&P) grant for settling them in initially, that is a one-time grant of $2,375 per refugee. $1,275 of that goes to direct refugee expenses (rent, food, essentials). $1,100 per refugee goes to agency operations. These are non-profits, so none of this goes to profit.

All of this is clearly documented in public records.

Let's compare that to the companies running detention centers and prison camps. Immigration detention is overwhelmingly run by for-profit corporations, primarily GEO Group and CoreCivic. ICE detention costs taxpayers roughly $150–$200 per detainee per day, which works out to $50,000–$70,000 per person per year. Can you imagine what refugee resettlement organizations could do with that kind of money! Much of that money goes directly to private contractors, who are legally structured to generate profit for shareholders. Resettlement organizations are non-profits.

Executives at these companies routinely earn millions of dollars per year, often with stock compensation tied to company growth. GEO Group’s CEO, for example, has earned $5–6 million annually, while the company itself generates billions in revenue, much of it from federal detention contracts. Unlike resettlement agencies, these firms are explicitly designed to extract profit from incarceration and detention.

CEO pay at resettlement agencies isn’t small, but it’s modest compared to what executives typically earn managing hundreds of millions of dollars, and far below what leaders of detention and prison contractors are paid. It’s also fully public and tightly regulated, which is more than can be said for much of the enforcement side, where so much goes on behind closed doors.

[JohnH]

Resettlement agencies typically receive about $3,000 to $8,000 per refugee in operational funding, total. Nearly all of that pays for staff, housing setup, compliance, and services. That amount includes a one-time Reception and Placement (R&P) grant for settling them in initially, that is a one-time grant of $2,375 per refugee. $1,275 of that goes to direct refugee expenses (rent, food, essentials). $1,100 per refugee goes to agency operations. These are non-profits, so none of this goes to profit.

Could you describe the source of funds for the $600,000 CEO salary, then?

All of this is clearly documented in public records.

That's why I included a link to Luthern Immigration & Refugee Services' 990 above so that anyone can click it and see for themselves.

Over $200 million in funds, mostly from the government.

$600k+ salary for the CEO. Lots of other executive staff with six-figure salaries.

ICE detention costs taxpayers roughly $150–$200 per detainee per day, which works out to $50,000–$70,000 per person per year. Can you imagine what refugee resettlement organizations could do with that kind of money!

Yeah, there'd be a lot more immigration, which the voters already said they don't want. The voters said they want existing illegal aliens to be detained and deported. "More immigration and more refugees" lost. "Remove lots of immigrants" won.

CEO pay at resettlement agencies isn’t small, but it’s modest compared to what executives typically earn managing hundreds of millions of dollars, and far below what leaders of detention and prison contractors are paid. It’s also fully public and tightly regulated, which is more than can be said for much of the enforcement side, where so much goes on behind closed doors.

A key difference is incentives; people running detention facilities are facilitating removing illegal aliens from the country, as opposed to lobbying the government to bring more in. I would agree I would prefer that detention facilities by run by the government directly. However, comparing the two is not a fair comparison. Do you want prisons run by NGOs and nonprofits instead?

[Bootstrap]

Resettlement agencies typically receive about $3,000 to $8,000 per refugee in operational funding, total. Nearly all of that pays for staff, housing setup, compliance, and services. That amount includes a one-time Reception and Placement (R&P) grant for settling them in initially, that is a one-time grant of $2,375 per refugee. $1,275 of that goes to direct refugee expenses (rent, food, essentials). $1,100 per refugee goes to agency operations. These are non-profits, so none of this goes to profit.

Could you describe the source of funds for the $600,000 CEO salary, then?

All of this is clearly documented in public records.

That's why I included a link to Luthern Immigration & Refugee Services' 990 above so that anyone can click it and see for themselves.

Over $200 million in funds, mostly from the government.

$600k+ salary for the CEO. Lots of other executive staff with six-figure salaries.

The 990 doesn’t list how many refugees an agency served, doesn’t report dollars per refugee, and doesn’t break out programs by client type. So there are real limits to what can be reconstructed from the 990 without other souurces.

Using public State Department arrival data and standard federal program amounts, my best estimate is that Global Refuge resettled roughly 8,000–12,000 refugees in 2024, and received about $3,000–$8,000 per refugee in operational funding through standard resettlement programs. That would generate approximately $24–$96 million in revenue tied to refugee placements.

The rest of their ~$229 million budget probably comes from other programs that are not refugee resettlement. The known per-refugee numbers don’t add up to a $229M budget. The CEO salary is paid from the organization’s general administrative budget across all programs, not just refugee programs.