re: "State Department reform: Much ado about nothing?"

Thomas M. Hill at The Brookings Institution ("a nonprofit public policy organization") is thinking about State Department's reorganization plan.

Money quote(s):

"A second rumored reform to fold State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs and Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration into the Department of Homeland Security came under attack from Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) as well as House Democrats. Senator Cardin stated, “I firmly believe the State Department should remain the face of America to the world and the entry point for foreigners traveling here, for consular activities and refugee resettlement.”"

It's fine for all options to be on the table and to give consideration to major changes.  It's not necessarily a bad thing to have to stop and consider why things are being done a certain way or why things are a certain way.  If nothing else, Sec. Tillerson and others now have a firmer grasp of why it makes sense for State to be the "front end" of the visa and other consular services, even where there are shared and even overlapping responsibilities with DHS.

"The opposition to these rumored reforms was so significant that Secretary Tillerson felt compelled to include a slide in the reorganization plan preview titled “what redesign is not” and saying, “there is no intention by State or USAID to undertake the following actions at this time: moving Consular Affairs to DHS… Dismantling State or USAID…”"

Glad that's settled then.

First glance at the proposed RAISE Act.

RAISE = Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy

You can read the proposed legislation at Sen. Cotton's web page.

A couple of things caught my notice beyond the obvious things which are summarized, also by Sen. Cotton, here.

First, the obvious:

 - Diversity Visa (DV) program eliminated;

 - Refugees capped at 50,000 per annum;

 - Spouses and minor children still eligible to immigrate but not other extended family members;

 - New non-immigrant visa category, renewable every five years, for elderly parents;

 - Grandfathers pending immigrant visa cases for eliminated categories but only if applied for before the introduction of this bill and scheduled to travel within one year of the bill's passage;

 - Introduces a points-based system to replace current employment-based visa categories;

 - Makes naturalization of an immigrant conditional on the immigrant's sponsor having reimbursed any benefits received by the immigrant during the sponsorship.

There are a bunch of little editorial points, basically housekeeping and neatening-up the existing statute, plus replacing "Attorney General" with "Secretary of Homeland Security" in a few places where this should already have happened since INS (among other things) moved from DOJ to DHS.

CAA is agnostic about eliminating the DV visa.  It's probably served its purpose if its purpose was to, er, diversify the flow of immigrants to the U.S., given how long it's been running.  So declare it a success and move on.  Since immigrant communities now exist (shout-out to Minnesota!) from lots of places (shout out to Somalia!) where few-to-no immigrants used to come from, "chain" immigration from those places will undoubtedly continue, although significantly diminished due to the elimination of non-immediate relative visa categories.

The number of refugees the U.S. takes-in is at the discretion of the president, under current law.  Fifty-thousand is at the high end of the numbers the U.S. has tended to receive over time and, frankly, if there should be a time and situation where president decides a number exceeding that should be admitted then he or she can always ask Congress for a higher number that year (and or succeeding years), and make the case for it.  It's not like trying to pass a Constitutional amendment, and if the need is compelling perhaps even congressmen and senators can be persuaded.

Eliminating the family-based visa categories beyond spouses and minor children is a big deal.  It will drastically clamp-down on "chain immigration" over time, which I think is the point.  I think there's room for improvement on how it's implemented, purely on the basis of fairness, which I'll address below.

Something I noticed in the bill which I haven't seen commented upon elsewhere is changing the age for minor children from 21 to 18 years.  It's a fair point, we consider children in most respects to be adults and on their own, more-or-less, at age 18.  It also doesn't shut the door to the 18+ year-old children from applying for student visas and coming over when the rest of their family immigrates; in fact, that would make a lot of sense, assuming the families have the resources to support it.  They would then, as they finished their higher (and higher) education be free to apply to stay under the points-based system being introduced by this bill.  

For those cases where the families don't have the resources to put their children into colleges and universities, what I'd like to see is a conditional status created that would allow the 18-21 year-old children, assuming they were otherwise qualified, to enlist in the military or naval services so they could qualify for citizenship on their own efforts.  Just a suggestion.

The five-year renewable non-immigrant visa for elderly parents makes a lot of sense and I'm not going to rake it over here.  CAA has issued immigrant visas to plenty of people who would fit into this category.  It's certainly an interesting idea and open to debate.

The points-based immigration system designed to replace our existing employment-based petitions is a system similar to that used by both Canada and Australia, two immigrant-friendly countries much like our own in many respects.  There's lots of room for haggling over how the points might be allocated, but there's also no reason it couldn't be revisited in the future to adjust how points are earned.

The issue of grandfathering pending immigrant cases where the visa category is being eliminated touches a nerve for me.  The numbers of visas for non-immediate relatives has an annual numeric cap, apportioned by country.  There are some countries (Mexico and Philippines spring readily to mind) where the wait is decades long.  These are people who, dutifully complying with our laws, have been patiently waiting to legally immigrate to the U.S., sometimes literally dying before their "number" comes up.  The way I read the draft bill, the first cut-off is that they have to have filed their petition no later than the when this bill was introduced.  The second cut-off is that they have to be scheduled arrive in the U.S. no later than one year after (or the day before one year) after the bill is passed into law.

What I don't see is the elimination of the numerical limitation, so that those waiting all these years for their turn, actually get their turn.  Perhaps I missed it?

CAA is all about legal immigrants lawfully complying with our immigration laws.  So it goes down sideways for us on the implementing side of the equation to be breaking faith with those who have been earnestly attempting to comply with our laws.  CAA is a big fan of people who comply with U.S. immigration laws; CAA believes people who start out by complying with U.S. immigration laws are more likely to continue being law-abiding than people who begin by ignoring or violating our laws.  Just sayin'.

CAA would like to see those waiting to obey the law get their chance to do so.  Let the bill be amended to let DHS and USCIS estimate annually how many of the pending cases they can process, irrespective of what the annual numerical limit has been, and then let USCIS and the State Department process those cases, until the backlog is gone.  Finished.  Finito.  Fertig.

re: "U.N. Iraq chief: The countries of the world must take MEK ‘refugees’"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") reported on the UN's efforts to resettle the PMOI.

Money quote(s):

"The United Nations and the State Department have been struggling to convince the Iranian exile group the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) to move to a former U.S. military base in Iraq, but the real need is for third countries to accept MEK "refugees" on a permanent basis, according to the top U.N. representative in Iraq."

That would be Martin Kobler, "the head of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq."

"The MEK is a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization opposed to the Iranian regime that has been living in a closed compound in Iraq called Camp Ashraf for years. The Iraqi government has pledged to close Camp Ashraf, using force if necessary, so the U.N. and the State Department are slowly but surely cajoling Ashraf's 3,200 residents to move to Camp Liberty, a former U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport.

But that's only a temporary solution. Unless other countries start accepting MEK members for relocation, they could face the prospect of being returned to Iran, where they could face retribution from the Iranian regime they have been fighting for decades."

They "could" at that.

"Part of the difficulty of dealing with the MEK group members at Camp Ashraf is that they have been cut off from the world for years and little is known about their individual histories or whether they would qualify for refugee status. Some reports say that MEK members are still conducting violent attacks inside Iran at the behest of the Israeli government.

The United States is legally barred from accepting any refugees from members of a foreign terrorist organization. There is also no plan for what happens to those MEK members who do not qualify for refugee status."

It seems unlikely that any of the 3,200 interned PMOI members in Iraq are conducting any attacks in Iran, but that doesn't mean they couldn't possibly be involved, directing, or in some other ways supporting those attacks.

"Kobler disputed the claims made by the MEK and its long list of American advocates that the Camp Liberty site is not fit for human occupation."

Kobler's not just saying that to hear himself talk, by all reports.

"Kobler declined to comment on reports that the MEK is involved in ongoing attacks on the Iranian nuclear program and its personnel inside Iran. He also declined to confirm that U.N. reports have stated that MEK members were intentionally sabotaging the facilities in Camp Liberty in order to make the camp look worse than it is" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA)

Not that the Iraqis aren't capable having looted or otherwise degraded the Camp Liberty facility after the U.S. departed, but since U.S. embassy folks are reported to have inspected the place prior to any PMOI members being moved there.... let's just say I give some faith and credit to my colleagues in Baghdad.

"Some advocates of the MEK, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, have called Camp Ashraf a "concentration camp," a reference Kobler said is insulting and offensive."

4/16

re: "Israel and South Sudan announce full diplomatic ties"

Robert Zeliger at PASSPORT ("A Blog by the Editors of FOREIGN POLICY") explained some of this development's significance.

Money quote(s):

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu officially recognized the new country a week before the U.N. voted to make it the 193rd state to be admitted to the world body, earlier this month."

A small country carved out of the territory of an aggressive Islamist hegemon. What could they possibly have in common?

"Israel, which has no relations with northern Sudan, has promised South Sudan economic help -- something it is in need of.

The Jewish state sees Africa as important diplomatic territory and has been offering economic aid and lucrative business deals in recent years -- including arms and agriculture -- in an attempt to counter Iran's growing clout on the continent. The effort is partially about votes in the U.N. -- Africa has 54 now. Iran has been trying to extend its outreach to African states like Senegal and Nigeria in an effort to counter its growing isolation in the West."

Israel is getting in on the ground floor with a country needing all sorts of nation-building expertise.

"Israel has another reason for wanting to establish ties with the new country. In recent years it has been flooded with thousands of refugees from Sudan -- people fleeing strife in both Darfur and South Sudan. They sneak into Israel through Egypt and have stirred debate about whether the country should be more or less welcoming. Already, since the announcement of new ties, the country's interior minister, Eli Yishai, has called on Israel to begin negotiations with South Sudan to return the refugees."

This is an angle I hadn't heretofore considered, but it touches on important domestic political and cultural issues that only reinforce what a win-win diplomatic strategy this is for Israeli.

7/28

re: "White House: Jewish “refugees” right of return should be “on the table” "

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside The Foreign Policy Machine") noted the raising of a non-issue.

Money quote(s):

"The right of Jews to return to the Arab and predominantly Muslim countries they fled from or were kicked out of over several decades could be "on the table" as part of the Middle East peace negotiations, according to a senior White House official."

This could, theoretically, be useful in terms of neutralizing the demand for a right-of-return for Palestinian Arabs.

"In response to a question asking why there is a great deal of focus on the Palestinian refugee issue but almost no focus on the Jews who departed Arab lands, Rhodes declared that the Israelis and Palestinians should negotiate on the Jewish right of return to Arab and Muslim countries and that the United States could play in role in mediating that issue."

Unlike the Arabs who, after being variously expelled or fleeing what is now the state of Israel, became refugees in various neighboring countries, Jews who were forced to leave majority Muslim countries were accepted and integrated in their countries of refuge (primarily Israel). The hows and whys of that fill volumes.

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the argument that Palestinian refugees have the right of return to Israel in his Tuesday speech before a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress.

"[T]he Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel," he said. "You know, everybody knows this. It's time to say it. It's important."

But neither Obama nor Netanyahu mentioned the Jewish right of return in any of their speeches or remarks over the past few days.

Noah Pollak, the executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, said that the Jewish right of return is actually not an issue that's part of the peace negotiations, largely due to the fact that a) there are no Jewish refugees, and b) they don't have any desire to claim lands in Arab states.

"I would like to congratulate the administration for even-handedness, but in fact there are no Jewish refugees today. That's because the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries have been citizens of Israel for decades, where they live in freedom and prosperity," he said."

re: "US Policy and the Middle East"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog*") had a recap of some Israeli-Palestianian issues.

Money quote(s):

"Any border between Israel and Palestine is going to be imposed, not "mutually agreed". If Obama does not know know this -- and it's very difficult to believe that he does not -- Secretary Clinton and the Foreign Service certainly do, as does most of Capitol Hill. There is not going to be any mutually agreed border between Palestine and Israel. There is not going to be any contiguous Palestinian state that unites Gaza and the West Bank. (The Camp David Accord proposal included an elevated railway and an elevated freeway between Gaza and Judea.) Israel is not going to give up the settlements, the Golan Heights, or the fortifications in the Jordan River Valley, nor will the IDF give up unmonitored and unrestricted access to the Jordan Valley. Israel does not have the resources to force the settlers to leave the West Bank. The IDF won't do it; the experience in Gaza was too traumatic. Nor could any Israeli government survive an hour after Palestinian police began forcibly removing Jewish settlers from homes around Bethlehem or in Samaria.

This is reality; but assume that somehow it happened and there were "mutually agreed swaps" leading to some kind of border: there remains the question of the refugees who claim a right of return. After the 1948 war, and again after the 1967 war, a number of Arabs fled Israel, in both cases at the encouragement of Arab governments. Most expected to return after the Arab victories. When those victories didn't materialize, they became refugees. How many is controversial, but a half million is a not unreasonable compromise. There are now more than a million who claim refugee status and a right of return to Israel. That includes the surviving original refugees and their lineal descendents including heirs to property to which they have a nearly indisputable title going back to the Turkish government that preceded the British League of Nations Mandate that created Trans-Jordan and Palestine. Some are Christians. I know some of these people. As one put it, "I know that the Germans did terrible things to those people, but I do not know why that gives them the right to my home." The home she describes is in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor, and she grew up in it as a girl. Their family has always been Christian, and they claim descent from the original first generation baptized by the Apostles. Whatever the truth of that claim, they certainly owned that property under the Turks and under the British Mandate government, and it is certainly occupied by European born Jews whose title comes from the Israeli government. No compensation has ever been paid -- not that such compensation would be accepted. "It is not for sale. It has never been for sale."

That story can be multiplied by thousands. How many thousands is not clear. Some of the refugees are descendents of nomads of no fixed address -- much of Palestine in 1948 was undeveloped desert. Some have questionable origins or questionable titles to land in Israel. Discard all those of questionable status and there remain hundreds of thousands of genuine refugees displaced from land in pre-1967 Israel, and who claim a right of return. Add the the others whose status cannot be determined and the number climbs toward a million, perhaps more. While my friends have homes and jobs in Bethlehem (one is a physician married to another Palestinian who is legally resident in Jerusalem although he is not allowed to live there), most of those claiming refugee status live in poverty in refugee camps.

The Arab Israeli wars also produced tens to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, who were forced out of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and other Arab lands. They fled to Israel, where they were absorbed into the Israeli economy and have long since ceased to have any kind of refugee status. That did not happen with the Arab refugees. They were put up in refugee camps and kept there. They were not absorbed into any Arab countries, and most of them remain stateless refugees" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

AO - Two Cubans and a Somalian seeking refugee status find favor with Supreme Court

Amandala Online


Two Cubans and a Somalian seeking refugee status find favor with Supreme Court


Posted: 07/05/2009 - 10:55 PM


Author: Rowland A. Parks

It is standard procedure for the Government of Belize to ship people back to their countries of origin once they arrive in Belize seeking some kind of refugee status. At the Kolbe-managed prison, there are a number of persons who are awaiting repatriation to their countries of origin. Although Belize has a refugee law and is a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention, the rights of persons seeking refugee status in Belize are at times overlooked.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"But today in the Supreme Court, Belize’s Refugee Law was upheld, when Justice Michelle Arana ruled in favor of human rights activist Antoinette Moore in a judicial review that she filed on behalf of two Cubans and a citizen of Somalia, who are seeking refugee status in Belize.

The two Cubans filed an application for a judicial review, challenging the Government of Belize’s policy in relation to their refugee interest. The Cubans, Pedro Garcia Carrera and Karelis de Los Angeles Sosa Sanchez, and the Somalian, Nur Abdi Shire, took the Attorney General, the Minister of National Security, and the Director of Immigration to court, asking the court to affirm their rights to seek refugee status in Belize.

In her judgment that was issued in the applicants’ favor, Justice Arana ruled that the petitioners have a right to a refugee hearing. But most importantly, while they are awaiting such a hearing, they will do so in protective custody outside the walls of the prison."

TO - Father of Miss Oregon investigated on suspicion of visa fraud

The Oregonian

Father of Miss Oregon investigated on suspicion of visa fraud


by Michelle Roberts, The Oregonian

Friday March 13, 2009, 5:30 AM

U.S. immigration officials are investigating the father of the reigning Miss Oregon on suspicion of visa fraud after an international war crimes tribunal reported that he had served in a military unit that slaughtered unarmed Muslims in Bosnia in 1995.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Federal prosecutors say that Serbian national Milenko Krstic, 52, father of Miss Oregon Danijela Krstic, 24, lied in 1998 when he was applying for refugee status, stating under oath that he had never served in the military.

Six years after Krstic settled in Beaverton in 1999 with his wife and two daughters, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reported to U.S. immigration authorities that Krstic had, in fact, served in the Army of Republika Srpska.

Krstic's militia, also known as the Bosnian Serb Army, has been designated by the International Court of Justice in The Hague as having participated in war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian civil war in the early 1990s."

"A three-judge panel rejected Krstic's argument that he couldn't be prosecuted for possessing an authentic immigration document, or "green card," even though it had been obtained by means of a false statement."

&

"In 1998, three years after leaving the military, Krstic and his family emigrated to the United States. As part of a refugee application, he filled out an I-590 form, which requires, among other things, applicants to disclose foreign military service.

Krstic contends that "someone wrote 'not served' in English" on the form. Federal officials, however, say that Krstic denied having served in the military "during a sworn, personal interview administered in Belgrade."

Krstic and his family were granted refugee status and admitted to the United States. They settled in the Portland area.

In 1999, the family applied to become lawful permanent residents. As part of the application, Krstic filled out an I-485 form, which also asks applicants to report any prior foreign military service. Krstic again did not disclose his service. He was issued an alien registration receipt card, also called a green card.

In 2005, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reported Krstic's military service to U.S. immigration authorities. Federal agents entered Krstic's home and interviewed him. He admitted to serving in the military but denied committing war crimes."

BG - Faster citizenship in uniform

From my archive of press clippings:

Boston Globe

Faster citizenship in uniform


February 19, 2009


THE MILITARY has long had a policy of offering accelerated citizenship to legal immigrants with green cards who volunteer for service. Now it is going to offer the same inducement to immigrants who are refugees or on temporary work or student visas. While thorough background checks will be needed to make sure the recruits aren't sleeper agents for enemy states or terrorist organizations, the program should help the Pentagon cope with two wars and the need to be prepared for other conflicts.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The Army, which is taking the lead on the new policy, hopes to use it to draw immigrants who have medical training or linguistic skills and familiarity with foreign cultures. The service is quick to point out that the new program is not a means of meeting overall recruitment goals."

&

"(T)he two wars of this decade have taught the military how critical it is to have troops with the ability to speak languages used in the world's hot spots, from the Pushtu of Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Somali and Swahili of East Africa. The new program also recognizes the large number of immigrant doctors and nurses working in this country, whose skills are also needed in the military. To qualify for enlistment, the immigrants will need to have been in the United States at least two years. Once sworn in, they can immediately apply for citizenship and can get it in as little as six months.

To protect against sleeper agents, all the recruits will be subject to screening by the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the initial DHS screen done before they received their visas."

PI - Fleeing to Philly: Thousands of Liberians seek asylum here

From my archive of press clippings:

Philadelphia Inquirer

Fleeing to Philly: Thousands of Liberians seek asylum here


Posted on Wed, Feb. 18, 2009


By STEPHANIE FARR


Philadelphia Daily News


farrs@phillynews.com 215-854-4225


During the 1800s, Americans of African descent moved in the thousands to Liberia, a West African country founded by freed slaves.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Between 1990 and 2009, 32,543 Liberian refugees were admitted nationwide, said David M. Santos, northeast regional media manager with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

By 2006, more Liberian refugees had resettled in the greater Philadelphia area than in any other metropolitan region in the country, according to a 2008 report from the Brookings Institute, a public-policy nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C."

"Refugees are given employment authorization and after a year are required to apply for lawful permanent-resident status, Santos said. Refugees are eligible for naturalization five years after they arrive in the United States.

In 2006, Liberia was taken off a U.S. Refugee Admission Program's list, which allows people to apply for refugee status if they have a parent, spouse or child in the United States."

NYT - Officers Battle Visa Hurdles for Iraq Aides

From my archive of press clippings:

New York Times

May 14, 2008

Officers Battle Visa Hurdles for Iraq Aides

By CONRAD MULCAHY

When Lt. Col. Michael Zacchea left Iraq in 2005, he was torn. His yearlong mission to train an Iraqi Army battalion had left him wounded and emotionally drained, and he was eager to go. But leaving Iraq also meant leaving Jack, his Iraqi interpreter, to face an insurgency that has made a point of brutalizing those who help the Americans.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"It took two years for Jack to get a visa. He is one of the very few to succeed among thousands who have worked as interpreters for the United States military.

To many veterans that is not an acceptable rate, given the risks the interpreters took, and Colonel Zacchea and others are taking up the cause.

They have created a growing network of aid groups, spending countless hours navigating a byzantine immigration system that they feel unnecessarily keeps their allies in harm’s way. There is, they say, a debt that must be repaid to the Iraqis who helped the most. To them it is an obligation both moral and pragmatic."

"Nearly 2,000 interpreters in Iraq and Afghanistan have applied to the State Department for a special immigrant visa, which was begun in 2006 as a last resort for those fearing for their lives. So far 1,735 cases have been approved, though it is unclear how many interpreters have come to the United States. In its first year the visa program for interpreters was limited to only 50 spots. Since then it has expanded to 500 spots a year.

But the numbers tell only part of the difficulty. The program does little to minimize the visa bureaucracy. The process, complicated for anyone, is especially hard for interpreters.

They are considered refugees, and refugees cannot apply from their native countries, in this case Iraq. But Jordan and Syria have closed their borders to the flood of Iraqi refugees. Passports issued by the government of Saddam Hussein are not valid, often making it impossible to cross borders legally."

&

"(T)he government’s hands were initially tied by the lack of federal legislation allowing special visas for interpreters. Now that more visas have been made available, he said, President Bush has directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, to “make sure the visa process for translators and others moves as quickly as possible.”"