A recent Wall Street Journal story concerning Portland’s influx of asylum seekers emphasized the contribution of earlier refugees and immigrants to Maine’s economy, implying that current asylum seekers are certain to be a positive contribution. But it hasn’t been easy for Maine’s refugees to gain employment and become independent. The Journal neglected that side of the story.

When the state of Maine studied employment data for the Somalis who arrived in 2001, they found that only 49 percent of working-age Somalis had worked at any time in their first five years here. And if they’re employed in low-wage jobs after being granted refugee status, then they’re probably still eligible for public housing and other benefits. Journalists rarely report on public costs.

What about this new group of asylum seekers?

According to immigration court data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, only 22 percent of asylum applicants are finally granted refugee status. African asylum seekers, with the help of immigration lawyers, will do better. Nevertheless, a significant number of Portland’s asylum seekers will probably be denied refugee status.

Will they go home? Will they join the illegal population, purchasing fraudulent documents or stolen identities to get jobs? Will they have an American-born citizen child, who will have access to federal means-tested programs, such as housing, food stamps, etc.? Will they demand amnesty and a path to citizenship?

Will Congress have the political spine to deport them if they don’t leave? Consider the optics. Deporting families with American-born children?

Congress is debating asylum reform right now. Let’s see what they do.

Jonette Christian

Holden

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter to the editor: Venezuela appears ripe for U.S. interference

Next »

Letter to the editor: 'Green' youth putting adults to shame