Refugees and Immigration: What does good look like?

[JohnH]

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.

None of that matters. What matters is we have an organisation that slurps at the government trough to the tune of $200 million a year and then pays its CEO $600,000. It then claims to be a "nonprofit". What it is, in reality, is a scheme to transfer money from hard-working American families to left-leaning, wealthy executives who then use their ill-gotten gains to lobby for even more generous benefits and for higher levels of immigration.

Let's take a look at this CEO's political contributions:

https://www.opensecrets.org/search?q=Kr ... ype=donors

Hmm. $100,000 donated to... herself to run for office. This is someone who is clearly a politician. She was not elected, yet she still slurps at the government trough to the turn of $600,000 a year.

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.

Why does this merit having a politician who gets a salary in excess of half a million dollars a year at the top, paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds?

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.

I would imagine they have a great deal of overhead. Their primary source of revenue, however, is government funding - or was, until the "money spigot" was turned off last year.

[Bootstrap]

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.

None of that matters. What matters is we have an organisation that slurps at the government trough to the tune of $200 million a year and then pays its CEO $600,000. It then claims to be a "nonprofit". What it is, in reality, is a scheme to transfer money from hard-working American families to left-leaning, wealthy executives who then use their ill-gotten gains to lobby for even more generous benefits and for higher levels of immigration.

If you want to look at the amount of tax money spent per-refugee on refugee programs, I think those are the numbers that matter. After all, those are the programs you are speaking out against.

And if you are really that concerned about the federal taxpayer, then you should be REALLY concerned about the cost of ICE, CBP, new detention centers and prison camps, etc. That completely dwarfs the amount of money spent on refugee programs. Don't they deserve at least the same level of intense scrutiny that you give to refugee programs?

[JohnH]

And if you are really that concerned about the federal taxpayer, then you should be REALLY concerned about the cost of ICE, CBP, new detention centers and prison camps, etc. That completely dwarfs the amount of money spent on refugee programs. Don't they deserve at least the same level of intense scrutiny that you give to refugee programs?

The topic of this thread is "Refugees and Immigration: What does good look like?"

I think it needs to be discussed that there is an entire refugee and immigration "industry" that involves people who make a lot of money off of them, and they make more money the more immigrants that get moved in. It also means these NGOs are not credible to talk about refugees and migration. Someone who has a $600,000 salary whose salary and lifestyle are at risk if there is less immigration is not credible to complain about losing government grants to sweep in more floods of migrants.

Overall, I think the consensus is clear: there has been enough immigration and we have also taken in plenty of refugees, and we have plenty more non-refugees who are nonetheless seeking asylum. We don't need to bring even more people in. There is not a crisis I am aware of at the Canadian or Mexican border where America is the next safe country. Canada and Mexico are both safe countries.

If you want to discuss private prisons, feel free to start a thread and talk about that separate, political topic. I already said I would prefer the government to run its own detention facilities and don't agree with private prisons.

[Bootstrap]

The topic of this thread is "Refugees and Immigration: What does good look like?"

I don't think your claims fit that title. But I also don't think they are true.

I think it needs to be discussed that there is an entire refugee and immigration "industry" that involves people who make a lot of money off of them, and they make more money the more immigrants that get moved in. It also means these NGOs are not credible to talk about refugees and migration.

But no, they do not "make a lot of money" per refugee, those margins are very thin. I don't think accurate numbers support the story you want to tell.

I just gave you the numbers on how much they earn per refugee. I think these NGOs are doing a very good job with modest funding per refugee. Most of these organizations have very high ratings with the charity watchdog organizations.

I like the way they enlist volunteers to work with refugees over time. It's a good chance for Christians to serve.

[JohnH]

I think it needs to be discussed that there is an entire refugee and immigration "industry" that involves people who make a lot of money off of them, and they make more money the more immigrants that get moved in. It also means these NGOs are not credible to talk about refugees and migration.

But no, they do not "make a lot of money" per refugee, those margins are very thin.

As I documented earlier, the CEO makes a $600k salary, and other executives make handsome six-figure salaries.

The total budget is over $200 million - nearly all paid by government funds.

I never said "they make a lot of money per refugee". I said "they make a lot of money" (which they do), and obviously they make more money if they are able to do more total volume. As an organisation, their CEO has been extensively involved in lobbying to bring in more immigrants to America.

I just gave you the numbers on how much they earn per refugee.

How is that relevant?

I think these NGOs are doing a very good job with modest funding per refugee. Most of these organizations have very high ratings with the charity watchdog organizations.

I like the way they enlist volunteers to work with refugees over time. It's a good chance for Christians to serve.

I don't like it when a CEO earns $600,000 and then "enlists volunteers". Perhaps instead of taking such a gigantic salary, the "volunteers" should get paid a modest amount for the work they do.

[Bootstrap]

If you want to discuss private prisons, feel free to start a thread and talk about that separate, political topic. I already said I would prefer the government to run its own detention facilities and don't agree with private prisons.

The topic of this thread is what the title says: “Refugees and Immigration: What does good look like?” The OP laid out clear guidelines for that discussion. When you shifted the focus to criticizing organizations that work with refugees, that seemed both off-topic and, in my view, unfair in its framing of facts—and it’s hard to separate that move from broader political framing. When I pointed out that significant money is being made by companies involved in detention facilities, prison camps, and surveillance systems, often on deals made behind closed doors, that was an attempt to bring balance.

I’d much rather keep the conversation centered on the topic of the thread: what would humane, just, and workable approaches to refugees and immigration look like? And I hope we can approach that as Christians who want to see what Jesus cared about for refugees and the vulnerable.

[ken_sylvania]

If you want to discuss private prisons, feel free to start a thread and talk about that separate, political topic. I already said I would prefer the government to run its own detention facilities and don't agree with private prisons.

The topic of this thread is what the title says: “Refugees and Immigration: What does good look like?” The OP laid out clear guidelines for that discussion. When you shifted the focus to criticizing organizations that work with refugees, that seemed both off-topic and, in my view, unfair in its framing of facts—and it’s hard to separate that move from broader political framing. When I pointed out that significant money is being made by companies involved in detention facilities, prison camps, and surveillance systems, often on deals made behind closed doors, that was an attempt to bring balance.

I’d much rather keep the conversation centered on the topic of the thread: what would humane, just, and workable approaches to refugees and immigration look like? And I hope we can approach that as Christians who want to see what Jesus cared about for refugees and the vulnerable.

I found the OP somewhat confusing as after asking what a good approach to refugees and immigration looks like, an sample answer was given that laid out a suggested political approach to refugees and immigration. However since the thread is not in the political subforum, it seems unclear whether the OP is asking for political answers or is asking how Christians ought to respond on a personal level.

[Bootstrap]

I found the OP somewhat confusing as after asking what a good approach to refugees and immigration looks like, an sample answer was given that laid out a suggested political approach to refugees and immigration. However since the thread is not in the political subforum, it seems unclear whether the OP is asking for political answers or is asking how Christians ought to respond on a personal level.

Thanks for asking for clarification.

In the OP, I wasn’t asking for purely personal responses. John asked me if certain things the country does are "wrong", and I was trying to address his question head on.

For the most part, I was trying to frame where I see important moral boundaries that more or less define "justice" as I understand it. Justice, to me, does require due process. That's what prompted this list:

• We accept a reasonable share of the world's refugees and screen them carefully
• The rules are clear and applied consistently
• Immigration courts are fully funded so people get timely, fair hearings
• Legal status isn’t taken away arbitrarily or for political reasons
• Removals, when they happen, are humane, keep families together when possible, and help people plan where they’ll go

I don't think the Kingdom of God is every going to run immigration courts, but we can certainly say something has gone wrong when families are broken apart for no good reason, when legal status is taken away arbitrarily or for political reasons, and when cruelty is done for show.

As for personal response, I’d start here: many parts of the church appear to be actively endorsing or excusing these kinds of injustices. Many Americans now associate “Christians” with restrictive or anti-immigrant views. If we don’t think that association is fair or faithful, then we need to be willing to clearly say that we do not support injustice, arbitrariness, or performative cruelty carried out in our name.

Another kind of personal response is to help refugees directly. I have done some of that. That may deserve a thread of its own.

[JohnH]

For the most part, I was trying to frame where I see important moral boundaries that more or less define "justice" as I understand it. Justice, to me, does require due process. That's what prompted this list:

• We accept a reasonable share of the world's refugees and screen them carefully
• The rules are clear and applied consistently
• Immigration courts are fully funded so people get timely, fair hearings
• Legal status isn’t taken away arbitrarily or for political reasons
• Removals, when they happen, are humane, keep families together when possible, and help people plan where they’ll go

This list is fundamentally political but also I don’t think you can find a single person here on MN (or pretty much anywhere else, including the current government) who would disagree with this list.

I don't think the Kingdom of God is every going to run immigration courts, but we can certainly say something has gone wrong when families are broken apart for no good reason, when legal status is taken away arbitrarily or for political reasons, and when cruelty is done for show.

I agree. Where you and I part ways is:

- the waters are muddied between government-certified refugees, people who have lodged asylum claims but have not yet been adjudicated, who are not all refugees, illegal aliens who either entered without inspection or overstayed, and other situations. Although I would want those people treated humanely too.
- families are not “broken apart for no good reason” but there is not an unlimited right for people to stay in the United States just because they are related. Some people choose to stay in the U.S. instead of remigrating with their family.
- some people choose detention instead of deportation because in many situations, they have a right to do so. Detention is meant to be short term. Yet some people choose to stay there long term. If people have a right to choose detention, we can’t exactly force them to choose deportation instead. (Most asylum seekers are in this category as are people who overstayed but are attempting to adjust status via some family based pathway, which could take a while.)
- legal status is not taken away “arbitrarily”. Temporary status is supposed to be temporary. Lots of notice has been given. Many peole have been allowed to stay temporarily but it is not a permanent right.

As for personal response, I’d start here: many parts of the church appear to be actively endorsing or excusing these kinds of injustices.

I think churches shouldn’t be getting involved in politics or government policy, period.

Many Americans now associate “Christians” with restrictive or anti-immigrant views.

Do they? Liberal progressives don’t like Christians but we can’t change that.

If we don’t think that association is fair or faithful, then we need to be willing to clearly say that we do not support injustice, arbitrariness, or performative cruelty carried out in our name.

I don’t really care what liberal progressives think about Christians. They need to “repent”, turn away from their wickedness, and “obey the gospel.”

Another kind of personal response is to help refugees directly. I have done some of that. That may deserve a thread of its own.

I think we should help our neighbours directly.

I am dismayed by Christian organisations that won’t help their neighbours but only want to help refugees (that had government grant money attached to them). A conservative Anabaptist group in Akron has this policy. They only “minister” to refugees and told me flat out they are not interested in Akron people otherwise. Their 990 revealed significant government funding.

I help all and do not discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, religion, migration status (except as required by law such as employment), colour, or other factors. I am disgusted by any so called “Christians” who do.

[Bootstrap]

For the most part, I was trying to frame where I see important moral boundaries that more or less define "justice" as I understand it. Justice, to me, does require due process. That's what prompted this list:

• We accept a reasonable share of the world's refugees and screen them carefully
• The rules are clear and applied consistently
• Immigration courts are fully funded so people get timely, fair hearings
• Legal status isn’t taken away arbitrarily or for political reasons
• Removals, when they happen, are humane, keep families together when possible, and help people plan where they’ll go

This list is fundamentally political but also I don’t think you can find a single person here on MN (or pretty much anywhere else, including the current government) who would disagree with this list.

I don't think the Kingdom of God is every going to run immigration courts, but we can certainly say something has gone wrong when families are broken apart for no good reason, when legal status is taken away arbitrarily or for political reasons, and when cruelty is done for show.

I agree.

Since this thread is about what good looks like, that should probably be enough agreement.

Where you and I part ways is:

On some of these things, I really do think you are misrepresenting my views or what is going on in reality. But that doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread, which is about what good looks like.

I was hoping this thread would be an easier place to agree!