Implementing the laws and regulations as they're written, not as we might write them ourselves

One of CAA's boring little bromides about being a foreign service officer (FSO) generally (and a consular officer specifically) is that FSOs don't make U.S. foreign policy; they implement and facilitate the foreign policy of the United States as established by the president, the Congress, and the secretary of state.

(There are exceptions to this, but they tend to be in situations of grave extremity out somewhere far beyond the beltway, sort of when an FSO becomes a "strategic corporal.")

So most sober FSOs, if they meet someone who says they're interested in making foreign policy, shouldn't encourage them to become FSOs. They should instead direct them to the arena of electoral politics, because it is politicians who make foreign policy, not diplomats.

(Of course, if a politician makes a successful foreign policy, or even survives long enough that people forget their unsuccessful foreign policies, they become known as statesmen.)

For consular officers the mantra is slightly different: consular (and immigration) officers don't make immigration law, regulations, or policies. Consular (and immigration) officers implement the immigration laws, regulations, and policies as they are written, and not as we might (even if we agreed among ourselves) have written them ourselves.

One corollary to all that has to do with public criticism of existing immigration laws, regulations, and policies.

CAA is more than happy to discuss positive and negative aspects of proposed or pending legislation while Congress is debating and deliberating. However, once something is signed into law, CAA will salute smartly and do his best to make it work.

That's what you sign up for when you raise your right hand and take the oath of office. (And if you get to a point where you just can't do that anymore, then it's time to think about hanging up your guns.)

Not that long ago, a change in visa interview policy raised some eyebrows (and hackles). You see, CAA maintains a very post-9/11 mindset when it comes to interviewing visa applicants, and is very on-board with the post-9/11 policy of interviewing all visa applicants, and in conducting as thorough a screening of visa waiver travelers as is practical.

So CAA viewed the Visa Pilot Program with a critical, even jaundiced eye. And came away somewhat grudgingly satisfied with what they have in mind.

So what about the president's recent statement?

Well, CAA tried to find if this was an executive order, but there doesn't seem to be anything published by the White House to indicate that one's actually been published on the subject. Apparently that's not how this is being handled.

(CAA had assumed, based upon all the hollering by the commentariat, that the president had essentially enacted the DREAM Act as an executive order. But that's not actually the case.)

But the president's remarks, once read in their entirety, left a big enough clue: the secretary of homeland security is the person actually issuing this order.

The key points:

"DHS continues to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. Today’s action further enhances the Department’s ability to focus on these priority removals.

Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion, specifically deferred action, on a case by case basis:

1. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
   
   
2. Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
   
   
3. Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
   
   
4. Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
   
   
5. Are not above the age of thirty.

Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action. Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding today’s date. Deferred action requests are decided on a case-by-case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that all such requests will be granted. The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

While this guidance takes effect immediately, USCIS and ICE expect to begin implementation of the application processes within sixty days"

Essentially, the DHS secretary is going to de-prioritize enforcement of immigration laws against a class of persons residing unlawfully in the U.S. based upon the reality that DHS has only so much in the way of resources, only so many enforcement agents, only so many budget dollars, only so many hours in a day, and only so many cells in their jails.

Executives are expected to exercise both leadership and management. Prioritizing the outlay of limited resources is part of the function of an executive. So that sounds, on the face of it, reasonable enough.

CAA is something of an executive, a manager, even (dare I say it?) a leader in the consular arena of immigration and has been known, when mentoring new vice consuls about how to implement and apply visa ineligibilities, that the bottom line for all the different reasons that someone can be legally barred from coming to the U.S. is a simple question: is this person a danger to the republic? Is this person likely to present a threat to national security, to commit crimes against U.S. citizens, to transmit dangerous (when considering certain medical ineligibilities) contagious diseases among the American people?

The group of people described by the DHS secretary don't, aside from their having been (as minor children) brought to the U.S. illegally, fit the bill for the bottom line as I've described it above.

It follows logically enough that if you're going to publicly announce that DHS finds this particular, clearly-defined, class of illegal aliens an insufficient threat to the nation to expend resources to deport them, that you then cowboy up and not ignore the problem the represent either.

It's quite clever, really, except that the solution DHS is going to, temporarily mind you, pursue will then require the expenditure of those scarce resources I mentioned, in order to receive, process, and provide temporary work permits, &tc.

You see, for legal immigrants, the cost expended in processing their immigration paperwork is recouped through the imposition of application fees. That is, Congress expects that the system will pay for itself so that they don't have to appropriate a huge budget every year to pay for it out of general tax revenues.

So I'm missing the part about what sort of application and processing fees are going to be imposed on the one million (give or take) illegal immigrants who may qualify for this temporary dispensation. Because, assuming all of those eligible go ahead and apply, a million (temporary) amnesty applications are going to take a lot of people away from processing the paperwork of legal immigrants who've been patiently waiting their turn to immigrate lawfully to this country.

Oh, and remember that oath of office? It's to the U.S. Constitution. So I read that every once in a while, when the mood strikes me. (It's really not that long a document.)

So CAA will admit there may be some Constitutional issues about whether it's strictly lawful for the executive branch to simply announce that it's too hard to implement and enforce the laws that Congress passes (or doesn't pass).

It's a gutsy move, frankly, and I'd have liked to see it done long ago in relation to immigration laws, but not necessarily in this context.

Congress has, IMHO, long left the immigration enforcement arms of government somewhat starved of resources to enforce the entirety of the immigration laws it's passed, and many have suggested that to be deliberate, that Congress (or at least some congressmen) wanted the laws on the books, but didn't necessarily want them enforced all that thoroughly. (Reasonable people can disagree on this.)

That being said, I'm sure this will end up in the courts, one way or another; will likely reach the Supreme Court, and in the meanwhile the rest of us working stiffs in government will just follow the lawful directives of our elected and appointed officials while the big paychecks, er, brains sort this out for us.

After all, either Congress will enact legislation making it legal, or the courts will tell us it's legal for the executive to prioritize this and handle the fallout accordingly, or it'll all get thrown out and DHS will have plenty of information on about a million self-identified illegal immigrants with which to jump-start their deportation proceedings.

re: "FS Journal: The Foreign Service Blogosphere 2011 Plus More"

Thanks to Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") for the mention. It's good company to be found among.

"Consul-at-Arms II
This is the blog of pseudonymous Consul Leslie Slote of the U.S. Consulate Port Plaisance, Barclay Islands Dependent Territories, a Consular Officer and long time blogger we don't want to leave out of the list, who writes "If you're looking for gossip, for breaches of operational security or privacy, for public criticism of the declared foreign policies of the United States of America, leaks or other treasonous disloyalty, the reader is invited to look elsewhere." "

Remind me to update my sidebar.

re: "Suddenly, States Have Authority Over Aliens"

Federale ("Federal Service Guarantees Citizenship") examines some of the technicalities differentiating consular and diplomatic immunities.

Money quote(s):

"(N)ow that the Punjab State government in Pakistan has arrested an American diplomat and are holding him in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the radical left is on the war path, defending the right of a State government to arrest and hold a diplomat.

As is usual with the left, they deceive their readers. They claim that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 authorizes the arrest"

&

"(D)espite the selective quotations from the Reds, Davis is not a consular officer, but a diplomatic officer, covered by Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which is quite stricter regarding arresting and holding diplomats as opposed to consular officers. But Counterpunch and their writer Dave Lindorff are either too dumb to know the difference between a diplomatic officer and a consular officer or they know and act to deceive"

Be sure to read the final paragraph: training matters; "Lack of training kills."

re: "You've Been Asked To Assist With an Evacuation. Now What?"

Paul Mayer at DipNote ("U.S. Department of State official blog") tells us what it's like to "answer the call."

Money quote(s):

"What do you do when you when you're a State Department consular officer and you're asked to travel halfway around the world, on very short notice, to assist with a crisis the breadth of which is still unknown?

First, you ask permission. When I was asked on Sunday, January 30 whether I would be willing to fly to assist in the evacuation of U.S. citizens from Egypt, the first person I asked was my wife."

Damn skippy you do!

"After having endured separation when I traveled to Haiti in January 2010, my wife asked if I really wanted to go.

I did. I wanted to go because the duty to assist U.S. citizens in a crisis is one of the State Department's core responsibilities. Colleagues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Operations Center's Crisis Management and Support office work and plan diligently for this sort of thing. They run exercises at embassies and consulates worldwide. They help you get prepared in advance, help you think how many people will need to travel, where they'll need to go, and how long they'll stay. They help us get the airplane tickets and they tell us where we'll be sleeping (even if it's on the floor of the embassy). They have our backs every step of the way."

Read the whole thing.

re: "Uninvited"

NoDoubleStandards at Muttering Behind the Hardline ("Rants of a Foreign Service Officer on the things that matter to you -- and matter to you not at all") provides an excellent example of the sort of empathy that the very best consular officers exhibit.

WT - LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Don't issue visas to terror-group supporters

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Times

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Don't issue visas to terror-group supporters

Friday, February 26, 2010

All of the Sept. 11 terrorists and the Christmas Day bombing suspect were issued visas by U.S. consular officers in the Middle East or Europe.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Before the Immigration Act of 1996, foreigners who were a security risk were denied tourist, student and business visas to the United States. This 1996 legislation was enacted into law by members of both major political parties and signed by the president.

Sponsored by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who wrote immigration legislation for 40 years, the Immigration Act stated that "mere membership" in a terrorist organization was not a sufficient basis for denying an applicant a visa. On June 10, 2002, then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage wrote that believing "an applicant may pose a threat to national security ... is insufficient grounds for a consular officer to deny a visa to an applicant.""

_____

MARGARET NAST
Las Cruces, N.M.

NYT - U.S. Consular Aide and Husband Killed in Mexico

Bad news from the border:

New York Times

U.S. Consular Aide and Husband Killed in Mexico

By MARC LACEY and GINGER THOMPSON

Published: March 14, 2010

LA UNIÓN, Mexico — Gunmen believed to be linked to drug traffickers shot a pregnant American consulate worker and her husband to death in the violence-racked border town of Ciudad Juárez over the weekend, leaving their baby wailing in the back seat of their car, the authorities said Sunday. The gunmen also killed the husband of another consular employee and wounded his two young children.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The shootings appeared to be the first deadly attacks on American officials and their families by Mexico’s powerful drug organizations."

"The killings followed threats against American diplomats along the Mexican border and complaints from consulate workers that drug-related violence was growing untenable, American officials said. Even before the shootings, the State Department had quietly made the decision to allow consulate workers to evacuate their families across the border to the United States."

"The F.B.I. was sending agents to Ciudad Juárez on Sunday to assist with the investigation and American diplomats were also en route to meet with their Mexican counterparts, said Roberta S. Jacobson, the American deputy assistant secretary of state who handles Mexico."

"Officials with the state of Chihuahua issued a statement Sunday night saying that initial evidence, corroborated by intelligence from the United States, pointed to a gang known as Los Aztecas. American interests in Mexico have been attacked by drug traffickers before but never with such brutality. Attackers linked to the Gulf Cartel shot at and hurled a grenade, which did not explode, at the American consulate in Monterrey in 2008, Mexican authorities said.

The shootings in Ciudad Juárez took place in broad daylight, within minutes of each other on Saturday as the victims were on their way home from a social gathering at another consulate worker’s home."

"Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros, 37, the husband of a consular worker, was found dead in a white Honda Pilot, with bullet wounds to his body, the authorities said. In the back seat were two wounded children, one aged 4 and one 7. They were taken to the hospital.

Shell casings from a variety of caliber weapons were found at the scene.

Another call came in 10 minutes later, several miles away. This time it was a Toyota RAV4 with Texas plates that had been shot up, with two dead adults inside and a baby crying from a car seat in the back. Mexican officials identified the couple as Lesley A. Enriquez, 25, a consulate employee, and her husband, Arthur H. Redelf, 30, from across the border in El Paso.

Ms. Enriquez, an American citizen, was shot in the head. Her husband was shot in neck and left arm. A 9 mm bullet casing was found at the scene."

&

continued

(Page 2 of 2)

"Concerned about the rising violence, the State Department had decided that employees at a string of consular offices along the Mexican border — Tijuana, Nogales, Ciudad Juárez, Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey and Matamoros — could temporarily evacuate their families to the United States. That decision was not formally announced until Sunday."

_____
Marc Lacey reported from La Unión, Mexico, and Ginger Thompson from Washington. Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington, and Elisabeth Malkin and Antonio Betancourt from Mexico City.

E.C - H1N1: Traveling with your health in mind

From my archive of press clippings:

Examiner.Com


H1N1: Traveling with your health in mind


June 23, 7:29 PM

Milwaukee International Travel Examiner


Kimberly Anderson


As of May 15, the U.S. Department of State lifted the recommendation to avoid nonessential travel to Mexico (www.travel.state.gov/travel/ is_pa_tw/pa/ pa_3028.html). However, the peculiar strain of influenza which combines genes from the swine, bird, and human flu strains should be taken into account especially if you have plans to travel to Mexico or Canada.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"If you are planning to travel to a high-risk area, the U.S. Department of State recommends precaution above all else. If you are at a higher risk to catch H1N1 you should see your doctor prior to your trip in order to discuss your plans. In addition, make sure you are up-to-date on all your vaccinations - www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/default.htm provides links to child, adolescent and adult vaccinations. Also be sure to find out whether or not your insurance covers treatment during your trip, and if does not, consider purchasing extra coverage in the event that you will require medical care during your visit."

&

"(I)f you become ill, seek medical aid. A U.S. consular officer will be able to help you locate treatment centers (call 1-888-407-4747 if you are in Canada or 00-1-202-501-4444 if you are elsewhere)."

_____

For more info: www.travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/brochures_1215.html, www.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/list.aspx

re: "Ms. Nancy Redeems Herself ... Just a Little Bit"

The Consul's Files ("Where U.S. consular officers can ...
... ask questions, answer questions, question answers, express frustrations, tell their favorite consular stories, uncensored and anonymous.") has a good memory for legislative inconsistency.

Money quote(s):

"I'm fairly certain that it was Ms. Pelosi who berated CA for attempting to collect payment from Beirut evacuees in 2006; people who had moved to and lived in a place we'd been warning them for years to stay away from. As it was the same Ms. Pelosi who had earlier voted against earmarking funds for Amcit emergency evacuations."

re: "Outrage"

Fetiche Nouvelle (Duyen Ky) at Eternity Road raises a number of excellent objections to media coverage of our pirate prisoner.

Money quote(s):

""Suspect" -- ? Either he was a member of the pirate crew or he wasn't -- and if he wasn't, what was he doing on their little jaunt, and negotiating with the U.S. Navy on the pirates' behalf?"

"And some idiot of a "civil rights lawyer" is claiming that America violated the "laws of warfare," on top of everything else? We're not at war with the Somali pirates! They're not a sovereign nation! No laws, no conventions, and no courtesies apply to people who sail into international waters, raid commercial shipping, take hostages, and threaten to kill them if their demands aren't met!"

&

"(I)f a federal judge had decreed this young viper to be a juvenile, the worst that could have happened to him would be a couple of years in a reform school -- after which he'd be a legal permanent resident of the United States!

I had to convince a consular official that I was fleeing from political persecution and that I had no intentions of subverting the government of the United States by subterfuge or violence."

re: "Immigration Reform with the Stroke of a Pen"

Angelo at Nation of Immigrators ("A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system") has some suggestions for immigration reform.

I hate the following:

"Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, could declare that all visa interviews by American consular officers would be video-recorded. This would help in two important ways. The federal government would capture biometric data on every interviewed applicant, thereby improving national security, and every consular officer (knowing that the interview could be viewed by superiors in Washington and by Congress) would have a (now-nonexistent) inducement to be fair in posing questions and allowing answers. "