550% Increase In Syrian Refugees? Not Nearly Enough.

Click here for an article at Politifact entitled "Donald Trump again fails to screen out the falsehood in oft-repeated claim on Syrian refugees." The Trump claim Politifact is investigating is as follows:

"We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place," he told the crowd in Cleveland on July 21.

"My opponent has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian, think of this, think of this. ... A 550 percent increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country already under the leadership of President Obama," he said. "She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people."

They rate the statement half true; the non-vetting part is false, but the 550% figure is correct. Here is Politifact's description of the vetting process in place today:

According to the U.S. refugees admissions program, created in 1980 and retooled after 9/11, a would-be refugee must first get a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a U.S. embassy or a recognized non-government organization. The U.N. process takes four to 10 months, and only about 1 percent are recommended for resettlement.

And that's before the United States begins its probe, where the names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. In addition, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If they pass those hurdles, they also have to pass medical screening, have a sponsor agency, pass "cultural orientation" classes and be examined for another security clearance.

However, Politifact fails to put the 550% figure in its proper context. They state the following:

Compared to other countries, the United States has accepted very few – about 2,000 last year, for example. Half are children. Only about 2 percent are single men of combat age, the mostly likely demographic for a would-be terrorist.

President Barack Obama said in 2015 that he would increase the number to 10,000.

Then, during a Sept. 20, 2015, appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, Clinton said that, given the scope of the problem, "I think the United States has to do more, and I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000, and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in."

The 10,000 figure is shockingly low, compared to the number of refugees accepted by other countries, mostly in Europe. Canada, for instance, has accepted and resettled 25,000 Syrian refugees -- 150% more than the U.S. Canada is absorbing that number of refugees into a country with a population of 33 million. If the U.S., with a population of 330 million, were to accept the same proportion of refugees, the number would be 250,000. So the U.S. increase in the number of refugees accepted would be an increase of 2,400% -- just to equal Canada. The 550% figure seems large until you realize that the starting point of 10,000, into a country with a population of 330 million, is extremely ungenerous.

By June of 2016, Germany, with a population of 80 million, had accepted 800,000 Syrian refugees. To equal that rate, the U.S. would have to accept 3.3 million refugees -- an increase of 7,900%.

Another way of looking at it: Canada has accepted a number of Syrian refugees that is ballpark, 1/1,000 of its population, .001%. Germany has accepted a number equal to 1/100th of its population, .01%. The U.S. has accepted a number equal to .0003% of its population.

In that context, does a 550% increase seem unreasonable?