Einstellung zum arabisch-israelischen Konflikt, zur Wirtschaftspolitik,zur Europäischen Union, zur Ausländerpolitik und Einwanderung, zuinternationalen Beziehungen, zum Irak-Krieg, zu Militärinterventionen,zur nationalen Sicherheit, zur NATO, zu Atomwaffen, zur politischenEinflussnahme, zum Terrorismus und zu den Vereinten Nationen. Themen: Befürwortung der Übernahme einer aktiven Rolle des Landes inder internationalen Politik; Einstellung zur globalen Führungsrolle derUSA; Präferenz für eine europäische oder amerikanischeSupermachtstellung; Ablehnung des Supermachtstatus der EU wegen einer zuerwartenden Erhöhung von Militärausgaben; wünschenswerte Stärkung derEU, um zu einem besseren Wettstreit mit den USA zu kommen; Einstellungzur Höhe der Verteidigungsausgaben des Landes; Einstufung potentiellerBedrohungen der Interessen Europas durch den islamischenFundamentalismus, den internationalen Terrorismus, die hohe Zahl vonEinwanderern und Flüchtlingen in Europa, den militärischen Konfliktzwischen Israel und seinen arabischen Nachbarn, die weltweiteAusbreitung von AIDS, den wirtschaftlichen Abschwung sowie einenterroristischen Angriff mit Massenvernichtungswaffen; Einstellung zu denVereinten Nationen; Sympathie-Skalometer (100-stufige Skala) für dieUSA, Russland, Israel, die Europäische Union, die Palästinenser,Nordkorea, die Türkei, China, den Iran, Saudi-Arabien, Frankreich undDeutschland; Einstellung zur internationalen Politik der amerikanischenRegierung unter George W. Bush; Existenz gemeinsamer Wertvorstellungenzwischen den USA und der EU; Europäische Union oder USA als wichtigsterPartner des eigenen Landes; Einschätzung der Entwicklung der Nähezwischen Europa und den USA; Wunsch nach engerer Partnerschaft zwischenden USA und der EU (Split: allgemein und in Anbetracht desIrak-Krieges); Bedeutung der NATO für die Sicherheit; Einstellung zueinem Einsatz des nationalen Militärs zur Vereitelung einesterroristischen Anschlags, zur Versorgung von Kriegsopfern mitNahrungsmitteln und medizinischer Hilfe, zur Beendigung der Kämpfe ineinem Bürgerkrieg, zur Sicherung der Ölversorgung, zur Bereitstellungvon Friedenstruppen nach Beendigung eines Bürgerkrieges, zur Entmachtungeiner menschenrechtsverletzenden Regierung, zur Verhinderung derVerbreitung von Atomwaffen sowie zur Verteidigung einesNATO-Mitgliedslandes; Einstellung zur Stationierung von Truppen deseigenen Landes in Afghanistan; Preis für den Irak-Krieg zu hoch (Split:allgemein und unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Befreiung des irakischenVolkes); Einstellung zur Entscheidung der nationalen Regierung, Truppenbzw. keine Truppen in den Irak zu entsenden; Einstellung zur Entsendungvon Landestruppen in den Irak im Falle der Zustimmung der UN (Split:allgemein und unter US-Kommando); Auswirkung der Militäraktion im Irakauf die Bedrohung durch den weltweiten Terrorismus; Einstellung zurNotwendigkeit, sich vor der Anwendung militärischer Gewalt derUnterstützung der UN (dreifacher Split: NATO bzw. der wichtigsteneuropäischen Verbündeten) zu versichern; Einstellung zu einerMitgliedschaft der Türkei in der EU; Hauptgrund für eine Befürwortungbzw. Ablehnung einer Mitgliedschaft der Türkei in der EU; Einstellung zueinem Militäreinsatz der Landestruppen in einem anderen Land zurBeseitigung eines drohenden Terrorangriffs (Split: einem Bürgerkrieg inAfrika) nach Zustimmung der UN (dreifacher Split: der NATO bzw. derwichtigsten europäischen Verbündeten); Unterstützung eines solchenMilitäreinsatzes trotz fehlender Zustimmung der UN, der NATO bzw. derwichtigsten europäischen Verbündeten; wirtschaftliche oder militärischeMacht als wichtigste Grundlage zur Beeinflussung des Weltgeschehens;Einstellung zur Notwendigkeit eines Krieges und zum Übergehen der UN;militärische Stärke als Friedensgarant; Maßnahmen zur nationalenSicherheit nur mit den Bündnispartnern ergreifen; Unabhängigkeit derEuropäer von den USA durch militärische Stärke; Militäraktionen oderErhöhung des Lebensstandards als bester Weg zur Terrorismusbekämpfung. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter; höchster Schulabschluss;Parteipräferenz (Sonntagsfrage); wichtigste Issues für eigeneWahlentscheidung bei der nächsten Wahl; Einstufung auf einemLinks-Rechts-Kontinuum; Schulbildung, Beruf, Haushaltsgröße; Wohnorttyp;(in den USA zusätzlich: Migrationshintergrund; Land). Attitudes towards the Arab/Israeli conflict, economic policy, theEuropean Union, immigration, international relations, the Iraq war,military interventions, national security, NATO, nuclear weapons, theuse of political power, terrorism, and the United Nations. Topics: support for an active role of own country in internationalpolitics; attitude towards strong leadership in world affairs by theUSA; personal preference for superpower status of the European Unionand/or the USA; against superpower status for the European Unionbecause of higher military spending; support for a politicalstrengthening of the European Union to better compete with the USA orto better cooperate with the USA; assessment of own country´s amount ofmilitary expenditure; assessment of potential international threats toEurope/the USA: Islamic fundamentalism, large numbers of immigrants andrefugees, international terrorism, the military conflict between Israeland its Arab neighbors, the global spread of AIDS (HIV), a majoreconomic downturn, a terrorist attack on own country using weapons ofmass destruction; attitude towards the United Nations in general;100-point sympathy temperature scale for the USA, Russia, Israel, theEuropean Union, the Palestinians, North Korea, Turkey, China, Iran,Saudi Arabia, France, and Germany; assessment of the George W. Bushadministration´s handling of foreign policy; European Union and USAhave enough common values to cooperate; European Union or the USA moreimportant for vital interests of own country; assessment of thedevelopment of transatlantic relations in recent years; support forcloser partnership between the European Union and the USA in general(split A) and especially considering the developments in Iraq (splitB); opinion on NATO´s importance for own country´s security; attitudetowards the use of own country´s military to prevent an imminentterrorist attack, to provide humanitarian assistance to victims of war,to stop civil wars, to ensure the supply of oil, for peacekeepingmissions, to remove governments that abuse human rights, to preventnuclear proliferation, and to defend a NATO ally under attack;assessment of costs in lives and money for Iraq war (split A) andespecially considering the liberation of the Iraqi people (split B);attitude towards presence of own country´s troops in Iraq (exceptFrance, Germany, Spain, Turkey); attitude towards decision not to sendtroops to Iraq (only France, Germany, Turkey); attitude towardsdecision to remove troops from Iraq (only Spain); attitude towards owncountry´s troops in Iraq if supported by United Nations mandate (splitA) or if led by the USA under United Nations mandate (split B);assessment of Iraq war´s influence on the threat of internationalterrorism; attitude towards the need to ensure support for militaryaction similar to Iraq war by the United Nations (split A), by theEuropean Union (split B) or by the most important European allies(split C); attitude towards European Union membership of Turkey; mainreasons for rejecting/supporting Turkish EU membership; support formilitary action to prevent an imminent terror attack if sanctioned bythe United Nations (split A), NATO (split B), the most importantEuropean allies (split C); support for military action to end a civilwar in Africa if sanctioned by the United Nations (split A), NATO(split B), the most important European allies (split C); support formilitary action without mandate by the United Nations (split A), NATO(split B), the most important European allies (split C); economicstrength more important than military strength in world affairs;attitude towards the necessity of war to fight injustice; attitudetowards ignoring the United Nations if vital interests of country areconcerned; military strength is best way to secure peace; importance ofcooperating with allies on national security issues; need for Europe tostrengthen military to reduce dependence on USA; regarding globalissues USA does not need European support; combating terrorismmilitarily is best; raising living standards in foreign countries isbest way to combat terrorism; political affiliation (USA only). Demography: sex; age; highest level of education received; age whenfinished full-time education; current occupation; voting intention(Sonntagsfrage); most important political issues in decision to vote;self-placement on a left-right continuum, size of household; ethnicbackground (US only). Additional variables: country, region, degree of urbanity. Weights: redressment weight for age, gender and education (USA: racenot considered); redressment weight for age, gender and education (USA:race considered); population weight for all European countries;population weight for European countries except Slovakia, Turkey andSpain; population weight for European countries except Turkey.

Overview

At the end of the 2018 fiscal year, the U.S. had resettled 22,491 refugees -- a small fraction of the number of people who had entered in prior years. This is the smallest annual number of refugees since Congress passed a law in 1980 creating the modern resettlement system.

It's also well below the cap of 45,000 set by the administration for 2018, and less than thirty percent of the number granted entry in the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency. It's also significantly below the cap for 2019 announced by President Trump's administration, which is 30,000.

The Associated Press is updating its data on refugees through fiscal year 2018, which ended Sept. 30, to help reporters continue coverage of this story. Previous Associated Press data on refugees can be found here.

Data obtained from the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration show the mix of refugees also has changed substantially:

• The numbers of Iraqi, Somali and Syrian refugees -- who made up more than a third of all resettlements in the U.S. in the prior five years -- have almost entirely disappeared. Refugees from those three countries comprise about two percent of the 2018 resettlements.
• In 2018, Christians have made up more than sixty percent of the refugee population, while the share of Muslims has dropped from roughly 45 percent of refugees in fiscal year 2016 to about 15 percent. (This data is not available at the city or state level.)
• Of the states that usually average at least 100 resettlements, Maine, Louisiana, Michigan, Florida, California, Oklahoma and Texas have seen the largest percentage decreases in refugees. All have had their refugee caseloads drop more than 75% when comparing 2018 to the average over the previous five years (2013-2017).

The past fiscal year marks a dramatic change in the refugee program, with only a fraction as many people entering. That affects refugees currently in the U.S., who may be waiting on relatives to arrive. It affects refugees in other countries, hoping to get to the United States for safety or other reasons. And it affects the organizations that work to house and resettle these refugees, who only a few years ago were dealing with record numbers of people. Several agencies have already closed their doors; others have laid off workers and cut back their programs.

Because there is wide geographic variations on resettlement depending on refugees' country of origin, some U.S. cities have been more affected by this than others. For instance, in past years, Iraqis have resettled most often in San Diego, Calif., or Houston. Now, with only a handful of Iraqis being admitted in 2018, those cities have seen some of the biggest drop-offs in resettlement numbers.

About This Data

Datasheets include:

• Annual_refugee_data: This provides the rawest form of the data from Oct. 1, 2008 – Sept. 30, 2018, where each record is a combination of fiscal year, city for refugee arrivals to a specific city and state and from a specific origin. Also provides annual totals for the state.
• City_refugees: This provides data grouped by city for refugee arrivals to a specific city and state and from a specific origin, showing totals for each year next to each other in different columns, so you can quickly see trends over time. Data is from Oct. 1, 2008 – Sept. 30, 2018, grouped by fiscal year. It also compares 2018 numbers to a five-year average from 2013-2017.
• City_refugees_and_foreign_born_proportions: This provides the data in City_refugees along with data that gives context to the origins of the foreign born populations living in each city. There are regional columns, sub-regional columns and a column specific to the origin listed in the refugee data. Data is from the American Community Survey 5-year 2013-2017 Table B05006: PLACE OF BIRTH FOR THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION. ### Caveats According to the State Department: "This data tracks the movement of refugees from various countries around the world to the U.S. for resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program." The data does not include other types of immigration or visits to the U.S.

The data tracks the refugees' stated destination in the United States. In many cases, this is where the refugees first lived, although many may have since moved.

Be aware that some cities with particularly high totals may be the locations of refugee resettlement programs -- for instance, Glendale, Calif., is home to both Catholic Charities of Los Angeles and the International Rescue Committee of Los Angeles, which work at resettling refugees.

About Refugee Resettlement

The data for refugees from other countries - or for any particular timeframe since 2002 - can be accessed through the State Department's Refugee Processing Center's site by clicking on "Arrivals by Destination and Nationality."

The Refugee Processing Center used to publish a state-by-state list of affiliate refugee organizations -- the groups that help refugees settle in the U.S. That list was last updated in January 2017, so it may now be out of date. It can be found here.

For general information about the U.S. refugee resettlement program, see this State Department description. For more detailed information about the program and proposed 2018 caps and changes, see the FY 2018 Report to Congress.

Queries

The Associated Press has set up a number of pre-written queries to help you filter this data and find local stories. Queries can be accessed by clicking on their names in the upper right hand bar.

• Find Cities Impacted - Most Change -- Use this query to see the cities that have seen the largest drop-offs in refugee resettlements. Creates a five-year average of how many refugees of a certain origin have come in the past, and then measures 2018 by that. Be wary of small raw numbers when considering the percentages!
• Total Refugees for Each City in Your State -- Use this query to get the number of total refugees who've resettled in your state's cities by year.
• Total Refugees in Your State -- Use this query to get the number of total refugees who've resettled in your state by year.
• Changes in Origin over Time -- Use this query to track how many refugees are coming from each origin by year. The initial query provides national numbers, but can be filtered for state or even for city.
• Extract Raw Data for Your State -- Use this query to type in your state name to extract and download just the data in your state. This is the raw data from the State Department, so it may be slightly more difficult to see changes over time. ###### Contact AP Data Journalist Michelle Minkoff with questions, mminkoff@ap.org