Here’s why we shouldn’t be resettling any more than a handful of Syrians:

Cost. Reihan yesterday at a panel discussion cited a study that found caring for a refugee resettled in Norway costs 25 times more than in the Middle East. In the U.S., such costs are borne almost entirely by the taxpayers of the local communities where the State Department dumps its refugees (without even informing the local authorities). Even the resettlement groups and local “sponsors,” such as churches, only assume responsibility for their costs for several months, until they’re signed up for welfare; in fact, the main function of “sponsors” is to get refugees signed up for welfare. That’s why more than 90% of recent Middle Eastern refugees are on welfare. Concern over costs seems to be the basis of a bill offered by Representative Brian Babin (R-Texas) to suspend refugee resettlement until the GAO thoroughly studies its costs.

Return. Providing for refugees in the region they’re from is not only hugely less expensive (thus enabling us to deliver concrete assistance to many, many more people), but the goal in any refugee situation should be to care for the displaced people until they can return home. And they’re much more likely to do that if they’re in refugee camps nearby; this is why Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran returned home, while few of those who moved to the West did. And it takes real gall even to suggest resettlement in a distant land when the rich, empty oil states of the Gulf refuse to take any of their kin.