This Issue: The State Department sets a refugee ceiling that will allow for the U.S. to alleviate some of the current strains on the system, and Congress continues to undermine border security.

BREAKING: A federal judge in California has just blocked the Trump Administration from detaining illegal alien families together while they await immigration court. More analysis to follow in the coming week.

On Thursday, the State Department, which administers the refugee program, released its proposed ceiling of 18,000 for refugee admissions for FY2020, set to begin October 1, 2019.

That compares with the approximately 30,000 refugees expected to be settled in the current fiscal year ending next week, and with the 58,900 average over the last 10 years.

In a statement the State Department wrote:

The current burdens on the U.S. immigration system must be alleviated before it is again possible to resettle large number of refugees. Prioritizing the humanitarian protection cases of those already in our country is simply a matter of fairness and common sense...It would be irresponsible for the United States to go abroad seeking large numbers of refugees to resettle when the humanitarian and security crisis along the southern border already imposes an extraordinary burden on the U.S. immigration system.

Of those refugee admissions spots, 5,000 would be set aside for persecuted religious minorities, an attempt to bolster President Donald Trump's heightened focus on global religious freedom, and 1,500 would be set aside for nationals of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, who are seeking asylum in the United States in far greater numbers.

What the AP neglected to report is that most of those from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador who are claiming "credible fear" at the border in hopes of being released into the interior of the United States are economic migrants, not asylees.

The Trump Administration should be commended for acknowledging the effort and expense that goes into refugee resettlement, and for its attempt to relieve the strains put on the asylum program by the border surge.

The refugee and asylee programs are not alternative avenues for foreign nationals who do not qualify under other categories of admission to enter and reside in the United States. These programs exist to provide shelter to those who are persecuted or who fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, and who do not pose a threat to the American people. When there is little likelihood that these individuals will ever be able to return to their home countries, they are permanently resettled in the United States.

Therefore, it is critical that these programs are managed effectively so that those who truly qualify are admitted and those who do not are refused admission.

It is also true that an overwhelming majority of the world's 26 million refugees will never have a chance be permanently resettled in the United States at any level set by any previous Administration.

Nayla Rush, senior researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies and an expert on refugee issues, makes the further point that "most refugees chosen for resettlement in the United States are selected solely on the basis of referrals from UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)," and that only a small percentage of refugees referred by the UNHCR are "emergency or urgent." In 2018, that number was 13,823, below the ceiling set by the State Department for FY2020.

It makes the most sense to accept for resettlement those cases which are most urgent; to help as many as possible where they are right now, most of whom will eventually return to their home countries; and to regain control of the asylum system here at home so that those who genuinely qualify as asylees can be helped -- and this is also the most ethical course of action.

Not helping with the latter effort were the votes in Congress this week to end the state of emergency at the southern border declared by President Trump back in February. The declaration has allowed the President to divert funds from other areas to spend on border security, including building barriers.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 54-to 41 to end the state of emergency.

Democratic presidential candidates Cory Booker (N.J.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) did not vote, nor did Republican Marco Rubio (Fla.).

Eleven Republican Senators voted against their party's President. They were Alexander (Tenn.), Blunt (Mo.), Collins (Maine), Lee (Utah), Moran (Kan.), Murkowski (Alaska), Paul (Ky.), Portman (Ohio), Romney (Utah), Toomey (Pa.), and Wicker (Miss.).

Today (Friday) the House also voted in support of ending the state of emergency, 235-174, again with 11 Republican House members voting with the Democratic majority. The breakdown of the House vote be found here.

The White House has indicated that President Trump will veto the measure and there are not currently enough votes in Congress to overturn his veto. While this result has little immediate effect on immigration policy, it is a troubling sign that Congress is not just failing to give the Trump Administration the resources and legislation necessary to effectively secure the border, Congress is actively seeking to hamper the President's efforts toward that end.

Eric Ruark, Director of Research