Not all that surprising, since volunteer orgs are much more efficient at this than the gov. The gov just plants them down and lets the local communities deal with the fall out. Sort of like an invasion ala Germany.

but giving millions to churches to facilitate multicultural diversity is perfectly fine.

Of course. The saying in DC is that the palm that gets greased needs to stay greased, otherwise blackmail and white mail will happen.

They can’t get control over you if you don’t take their money. Same in Hollywood. If you want the money and the fame, the girls better do what they are told to do by Polanski etc.

Most of the money for refugee resettlement comes from the taxpayers. Interestingly, much of it goes to religious contractors.
Of course, when a church wants to apply for a piddly grant to resurface a playground, that’s an egregious violation of the Establishment Clause — until the Supreme Court said it wasn’t — but giving millions to churches to facilitate multicultural diversity is perfectly fine.

BTW, I’m not faulting the church members in this, because like the couple of foster parents in the UK, they think they are being generous and charitable; but the consequences are dire.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267902/unaccompanied-muslim-minor-refugee-terror-attack-daniel-greenfield

Demoncrats feed them, and Americans are reliant upon Demoncrat largesse.

I recommended a similar solution for Demoncrats, aside from enforced exile.

The administration has to do something like that, to open their hands to actually handle Internal Security. Which means all the terrorists that have been training America’s FBI for years now on Counter Terror…

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/09/16/dreamers-can-stay-never-vote/

1. First, stop illegal immigration by whatever means are practical. If that’s a wall, fine, but a fence, more agents, employee ID checks etc…will be just fine with me. Solving the illegal immigration problem is important; how it’s done is less so.

2. I really like Brian E.’s solution of a yellow card for dreamers. It allows them to stay and to work but no path to citizenship except to apply in line like everyone else. It would mean no voting, no welfare and no chain migration. It would also mean that one felony conviction, violent misdemeanor or confirmed gang membership would lead to instant revocation of yellow card and deportation. I would stamp these conditions on their yellow card to be sure they understood them. While I’m sympathetic to their plight, I don’t like being taken advantage of.

The Washington political class on both sides of the aisle supports open borders for very different reasons, but the results are the same, so I think President Trump is sincere in his empathy for these young people, and taking a hard line would be good politics– many people that want a stop to illegal immigration are also sympathetic to “children”.

Does Trump lose significant support by taking this position? Probably not.

More worrying is the corrosive effect of the “swamp” on Trump’s positions. Rather than draining the swamp, there is a very real possibility that the swamp’s slimy undercurrent has caught Trump.

Being a person with a large ego, it’s understandable that it would also be difficult to be the outsider with no friends.

In addition, while not talked about, I wonder if Trump’s enemies are using every opportunity to damage his businesses. By the time Trump leaves the presidency, while most president’s have enhanced their net worth, is it possible that Trump will leave office poorer than when he took office?

I’ve said repeatedly that I expect Trump to accomplish three or four significant goals and I will consider his terms a success. While I’m not disappointed by this position on the children of illegals, the devil is still in the details, and as has been already stated, cutting off the chain immigration effect is critical.