Month: April 2017

The president’s desire to cut refugees is also costing U.S. jobs.

A reduction in refugee resettlement that began after an executive order by President Donald Trump in late January has led to at least 300 layoffs in the U.S. nonprofit sector and nearly 500 positions abroad, according to data collected by VOA. In some cases, the jobs slashed were held by resettled refugees.

A review of news releases, media reports, and information obtained from a survey sent by VOA to the nine primary resettlement agencies shows that seven of those organizations contracted by the government to coordinate refugees’ first months and years of living in the United States have had layoffs at their headquarters and local offices around the country, or at affiliate and partner organizations.

VOA documented more than 300 part-time and full-time positions cut in the United States, including:

Sources: World Relief; Church World Service (CWS); Exodus; Catholic Charities of Tennessee; Community Refugee and Immigration Services; Catholic Charities-San Antonio; US Together; Catholic Charities of Southeast Michigan; Refugee Empowerment Center in Omaha; Catholic Charities in Cleveland

Additional organizations reported cutting employees’ hours and not filling vacancies to trim budgets.

“Our budget as a refugee resettlement agency was heavily dependent on the government funding and the suspension and reduction of U.S. admissions for 2017 as well as [the] same dim prospect for 2018 has caused a huge negative impact on agencies like ours,” Aklilu Adeye, Executive Director of the Ethiopian Community Association of Chicago, told VOA in an email. The organization recently cut five positions.

The tally is not exhaustive: Two of the nine primary resettlement organizations — Episcopal Migration Ministries and International Rescue Committee — did not respond to VOA’s request for information or make that figure otherwise public; the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — historically one of the most active resettlement agencies — declined to provide data or comment about layoffs.

After the first executive order in January that would have stopped refugee arrivals for four months and cut the overall number for the fiscal year to 50,000, Sister Donna Markham, President and CEO of Catholic Charities USA, said that the program’s suspension would affect about 700 employees of Catholic Charities agencies nationwide, “with layoffs expected for nearly all of the workers.”

“If we’re talking about American jobs, this is laying off people in these public-private partnerships,” she told the National Catholic Reporter in February.

Overseas, Church World Service has laid off almost all 600 staff members at its Resettlement Support Center Africa, which coordinates with the State Department under a separate part of the refugee process from U.S.-based affiliates: 484 in Kenya, 27 in South Africa, and 19 in Tanzania.

“The decision to reduce our staff was a direct result of these executive orders, which sabotage our ability to offer vital services, support and counsel to families seeking to rebuild their lives in safety,” CWS President and CEO Reverend John L. McCullough said in a statement in March.

The contracts between the government and the nonprofit organizations — some of which have resettled refugees for decades — are based per capita on how many refugees are resettled by the agencies. They receive about $900 for each refugee to cover the administrative costs of helping the newcomers in their first 90 days in the country, from picking them up at the airport, setting up their first home and enrolling children in school, to hosting English classes and advising on job searches. Another $1,125 goes directly to each refugee for initial costs of setting up their lives in the United States, such as rent and furniture.

Fewer arrivals mean less funding, and that jeopardizes jobs — including some held by refugees themselves, who often are hired to interpret for members of their community or find other positions in the resettlement field.

In some cases, the nonprofit organizations are planning to receive thousands fewer refugees than anticipated by the end of the fiscal year.

From high hopes to layoffs

The fiscal year started with a surge ordered by then-President Barack Obama: The United States would take 110,000 refugees — more than it had in decades.

But those plans came to a screeching halt in late January, when one of Trump’s initial executive orders trimmed that number to 50,000; a revised order in March upheld the president’s call for that 55 percent reduction.

Despite federal lawsuits and injunctions rolling back those orders, the president maintains broad power over the ultimate number of refugees that will be allowed into the country. Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in significantly lower arrivals, leaning on what he says is a lack of confidence in the screening process for admitted refugees — although refugees are among the most rigorously vetted immigrants to the U.S.

Many resettlement organizations signed amicus briefs in support of lawsuits that challenged the refugee-related executive order, stating in one case that “faith-based refugee organizations’ ability to maintain operations and services moving forward has been devastated.”

The nonprofits have tried to rally financial support from the public in recent months, but several indicated in phone and email interviews that donations would not make up for any reduction in funding from the government.

The government’s Office of Refugee Resettlement operated on a budget of $1.67 billion in fiscal year 2016. That includes more than services for refugee resettlement, however. The bureau handles other programs, such as anti-trafficking efforts, and unaccompanied children. ORR asked for $2.18 billion for FY2017.

Refugee admissions in flux

So far this fiscal year, the U.S. has resettled about 42,000 refugees, but there has been no final word from the executive branch about how many more will be allowed in. The administration could halt the process abruptly at 50,000. At the current rate of arrivals — 800 to 900 individuals a week — that cap would be reached around the end of June or early July. (Last year, the country admitted 84,995.)

Fluctuations in the weekly refugee arrival numbers since Trump’s inauguration Jan. 20 reflect a system rattled by uncertainty, though in recent weeks that number has stabilized to align with a State Department comment to Huffington Post, indicating a goal of about 900 arrivals a week.

Trump promised to dramatically change not only the number of refugees admitted but the composition of where they come from and what religions they are, initially pledging to block Syrians and increase the number of Christians. However, the demographics remain nearly identical to those from before Trump took office.

A VOA analysis of refugee arrival data from Oct. 1 to Jan. 20 — the part of the fiscal year under Obama — compared with data from the beginning of Trump’s term until the end of March, shows the top 10 origin countries remain the same (DRC, Syria, Somalia, Burma, Iraq, Ukraine, Bhutan, Iran, Eritrea and Afghanistan). At the beginning of the fiscal year, about 48 percent of arriving refugees were Muslim. That figure is now 46 percent. Forty-three percent were Christian, which remained the same under Trump.

Lavinia Limon, head of USCRI, emphasizes that while U.S. refugee policy may leave some people out of work now, she believes the greater toll is on refugees awaiting resettlement. Even as the United States reduces its intake, the need for finding permanent new home-countries for some refugees remains the same.

“USCRI has been around for 104 years, and we have seen a lot of different politicians and politics surrounding the issues related to refugees and immigrants come and go,” Limon said. “I believe the focus needs to be on those thousands of refugees who will not be rescued and who will continue to suffer and might lose their lives because of politics in their homeland and politics in America.

“Whatever financial strain we may experience pales in comparison to their plights,” she added.

***

Have you or your resettlement organization been affected by staffing reductions? We want to hear from you. Email the reporter at vmacchi@voanews.com
…

India’s plans to invest in a strategic port in Sri Lanka as a counterbalance to China’s massive infrastructure investments in the Indian Ocean island country got a push Wednesday as Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe visited New Delhi.

China’s development of the key Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, which is a gateway to crucial shipping lanes, has raised concerns in New Delhi about Beijing’s widening naval influence in its neighborhood.

In New Delhi, India and Sri Lanka signed a memorandum of understanding on economic cooperation and expressed commitment to its implementation. Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Gopal Baglay, tweeted that it signaled “deepening economic collaboration.”

The specific deal to develop the World War II oil storage facility in the eastern port of Trincomalee, South Asia’s deepest natural harbor, is expected to be signed next month when Modi visits Colombo.

Although India’s planned investment in energy infrastructure in Trincomalee will be far more modest compared to Beijing’s ambitious Hambantota project, analysts say it will enable New Delhi to secure a foothold and ensure that no other country uses the harbor for military purposes.

While Colombo has assured India that Hambantota will be used only for commercial activity, its potential use as a naval base worries New Delhi. Those worries have intensified since a Chinese submarine docked briefly in Colombo port in 2014.

India has long fretted about China’s expanding foothold in the Indian Ocean region through infrastructure projects in countries such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

“We find that India is now getting more and more strategically encircled by economic infrastructure projects,” according to Vijay Sakhuja, Director of the National Maritime Foundation in New Delhi.

Besides Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, he points to China’s building of Gwadar port in Pakistan. Warning that these projects, built to facilitate trade, also have a strategic element, he says, “We should not be surprised by frequent PLA [People’s Liberation Army] navy presence in the Indian Ocean, particularly in Gwadar, which will cause some discomfort to the naval planners in New Delhi.”

For Sri Lanka, India’s planned investment in the energy project in Trincomalee will help counterbalance the massive infrastructure deals signed with China by the former government of Mahinda Rajapaksa, who had leaned heavily toward Beijing.

“The spin off of that [project] is balancing what is perceived as predominant Chinese influence as far as the economy is concerned,” said Paikiasothy Saravanumuttu at the Center for Policy Alternatives in Colombo.

The new government is trying to move away from the heavy dependance on Beijing for foreign investment. During a recent visit to Tokyo, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe sought Japanese investment for the Colombo and Trincomalee ports.

 
…

President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Tuesday said they did not fear a trade war with Canada after American punitive action on lumber and milk.

“They have a tremendous surplus with the United States,” Trump said, adding “people don’t realize Canada’s been very rough on the United States. … They’ve outsmarted our politicians for many years.”

Trump added that he wanted “a very big tax” on Canadian lumber and timber.

He made the comments at a meeting with American farmers where he signed an executive order aimed at helping agriculture and rural areas.   

Trump also talked to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Tuesday. Trudeau “refuted the baseless allegations by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the decision to impose unfair duties,” according to a summary of the call released by Trudeau’s office.

“The prime minister stressed that the government of Canada will vigorously defend the interests of the Canadian softwood industry, as we have successfully done in all past lumber disputes with the U.S.,” the statement said.

The White House later issued its own brief, three-sentence readout of the call, which it called “very amicable.”

The Canadian dollar fell to a 14-month low against the greenback after the United States imposed preliminary tariffs averaging 20 percent — more than $1 billion of countervailing duties — on imported Canadian softwood.

Earlier in the day, Trump vowed moves to protect the American dairy industry.

On Tuesday morning, he tweeted: “Canada has made business for our dairy farmers in Wisconsin and other border states very difficult. We will not stand for this. Watch!”

Against NAFTA

Trump, since his time campaigning for the presidency, has voiced his strong displeasure with the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but until now he has vented most of his ire southward, toward Mexico.

Ross, speaking to reporters on the White House podium, would not explicitly characterize the actions on lumber and dairy as the opening shots on renegotiating NAFTA, but he did say: “Everything relates to everything else when you’re trying to negotiate.”

He described Canada as “generally a good neighbor,” asserting that its allegedly unfair trade practices regarding lumber and dairy were not very neighborly.

Asked on Tuesday in Kitchener, Ontario, about the U.S. trade actions and the fate of NAFTA, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau replied, “Standing up for Canada is my job, whether it’s softwood or software.”

Trudeau added, “Any two countries are going to have issues that will be irritants to the relationship and, quite frankly, having a good, constructive, working relationship allows us to work through those irritants.”

Some other Canadians were less diplomatic in their reactions.

“In Canada, the perception is that we’re always very nice,” said Unifor President Jerry Dias, representing forestry workers across the country. “But we can’t get trampled by this guy [Trump].”

‘Ignore, do not engage’

The majority of Canadians, including the prime minister and his colleagues, “understand that President Trump is prone to making ill-informed, off-the-cuff and arbitrary comments about a host of domestic and foreign policy issues,” Donald Abelson, the chairman of the political science department at the University of Western Ontario in London, told VOA.

“Canada will likely respond to Trump’s Tuesday tweet in a manner similar to how a competent parent responds to a child’s temper tantrum — ignore, do not engage,” added Abelson, who is also director of the school’s Canada-U.S. Institute.  

Other Canadians displayed wry humor — a traditional reaction to irritations from south of the border (at least since the last U.S. invasion during the War of 1812), considering the asymmetry of power.   

The president’s messages prompted immediate puns on Canadian social media, with tweets referencing “sacred cows” and calling the American trade action on dairy “udderly stupid” and “cheesy,” Sparkle Hayter, veteran Canadian journalist and author, told VOA.

The dairy dispute goes back decades. Currently, there is an overproduction of milk, according to dairy farmers on both sides of the border.

The U.S.-Canada lumber squabble is rooted in a couple of centuries of history.

In response to the proposed tariff on softwood lumber, “Canada to strike back by charging duties on exported Cdn actors,” tweeted the account of 22 Minutes, a satirical news program on national public broadcaster CBC.

Cows are No. 1

The Twitter account also noted the U.S. president “tweeted about Canadian dairy industry first thing this morning, so on his list of priorities: 1. Canadian Cows. 2. North Korea.”  

Trump’s attention on Canada comes amid indications he is pivoting away — at least temporarily — from the southern border and his quest to quickly fund his border wall with Mexico.

“We have plenty of time” to complete the wall during his first term, Trump assured reporters Tuesday afternoon.  

The presidential desire for border protection might find a better reception to the north, considering the comments from some Canadians.

“Some [in Canada] would like to separate from the U.S., like literally,” by digging a two-mile moat at the border “and filling it with beavers and mosquitoes,” quipped Hayter from her home province of Alberta.   

But many Canadians see themselves confronting a cross-border creature bigger than a beaver.

“Sleeping with an elephant” is how the late Pierre Trudeau, the current Canadian prime minister’s father, once characterized relations with the United States, “affected by every twitch and grunt.”
…

U.S. President Donald Trump is set to call for a sharp reduction in the nation’s corporate tax rate, the highest among the world’s industrialized countries.

Trump is planning to unveil his tax plans Wednesday, with aides saying he will ask Congress to slash the current 35 percent rate down to 15 percent, a pledge he first made during last year’s presidential election campaign.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the U.S. has been “uncompetitive” against other countries in attracting new businesses, “largely because of our rates.”

U.S. lawmakers have for years vowed to adopt broad tax reforms, but the efforts have foundered. Congress has been unable to reconcile competing demands to eliminate tax breaks for some corporate and individual interests and raise taxes on others.

Trump’s tax plans are likely to face months of hearings and debate in Congress, where his Republican colleagues have their own ideas on how the tax code ought to be reshaped. Some lawmakers have expressed concerns that Trump’s call for a big corporate tax cut would balloon the nearly $20 trillion in long-term debt the U.S. has accumulated if there are not corresponding measures to raise more revenue.

U.S. Treasury chief Steven Mnuchin said Monday, “The tax reform will pay for itself with economic growth” that would boost tax revenues. Mnuchin called for tax simplification as well, saying U.S. reforms ideally would let taxpayers file their annual tax returns on a “large postcard.”

The U.S. economy, the world’s largest, grew at a tepid 1.6 percent pace last year, a figure Trump is hoping to boost to 3 percent a year, which the United States has not reached since 2005.

Tax experts say the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest among the world’s 35 industrialized nations, although U.S. corporations rarely pay that much because they are permitted to deduct their business expenses from their revenues before paying the amount they owe.

When the 35 percent rate is added to the average state corporate tax rate, the figure reaches 38.9 percent, which ranks third in the world among 188 countries surveyed by the Washington-based Tax Foundation. The U.S. figure trails only that of the United Arab Emirates at 55 percent and the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico at 39 percent.
…