Source: Religion News Service
(RNS) Faith-based agencies that resettle refugees in America stand to gain more than a clear conscience if the United States — after what is expected to be a fierce debate in Congress — accepts a proposed 10,000 Syrian refugees next year.
More refugees also means more revenue for the agencies’ little-known debt collection operations, which bring in upwards of $5 million a year in commissions as resettled refugees repay loans for their travel costs. All nine resettlement agencies charge the same going rate as private-sector debt collectors: 25 percent of all they recoup for the government.
This debt collection practice is coming under increased scrutiny as agencies occupy a growing stage in the public square, where they argue America has a moral obligation to resettle thousands of at-risk Syrian refugees. Some observers say the call to moral action rings hollow when these agencies stand to benefit financially.
“It’s money-producing, and I do find that troubling,” said Ronald Simkins, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at Creighton University. “It adds a perception of conflict of interest. Certainly for their advocacy it can become that. … It becomes in some sense self-serving in the end.”
Moral duty has become a prominent feature of the refugee debate. Example: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service has urged the Obama administration to show “moral leadership” by boosting its 2016 Syrian refugee allotment from 10,000 to 100,000. But even 10,000 is uncertain in the wake of the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks and a House of Representatives vote last week to increase security screening protocols for Syrian and Iraqi refugees. A Senate vote on the screening bill is expected in early December.
As resistance to refugees grows, so also do calls for moral action on their behalf. Some refugee advocates are now urging resettlement agencies to help the cause — and boost their own moral authority — by forgoing their 25 percent commissions if possible and letting newly arrived refugees keep that money. So far, none has heeded that call.
“It would be wise, if they can afford it, to let the refugees use whatever resources they have to help their self-sufficiency,” said Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. “It would add more credibility.”
Faith-based agencies resettled a majority of the 70,000 refugees who made America their destination in the past year. Next year, the Obama administration aims to raise the figure to 85,000, including 10,000 from Syria, where thousands have fled the brutality of the group that calls itself the Islamic State and a bloody civil war under the Bashar Assad regime.
Agencies and their denominations say the Syrian situation calls for a compassionate response to strangers in their hour of need. That stance is not compromised, they say, even when the agencies’ take from collections could increase by six or seven figures. At some (but not all) agencies, the money goes back into refugee support operations.
“By receiving these funds which are not restricted by funder/donor directives, we can work to develop other programs to support our clients,” Terry Holthause, travel loans manager for Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said in an email.
The loans, which are interest-free and extended by the federal government, do not go directly to the refugees. Instead the loans are intended to cover the costs of bringing the refugees to the U.S. and can run up to $6,000 for a large family. Refugees are expected to repay the loans, and when they do, the government only takes 75 percent, letting the agency have the other 25 percent.
Agencies already receive government contracts to cover costs associated with resettling a certain number of refugees in a given year. So the loan collections provide a separate, additional revenue stream.