Arab country doesn’t take refugees, so we take them off their hands

04/26/2013 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Sri Lankans who arrived illegally in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have arrived in Los Angeles!

Sri Lankan refugees, bags packed and headed your way!

This is a similar pattern to the “Malta Doctrine”*** the Bush Administration created some years ago. Illegal aliens arrive in some country seeking asylum and we go in and scoop them up to add to our “refugee” population. Readers, international law says that “asylum seekers” must ask for asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive—that country is not meant to be a transit stop on the way to America.

The UAE’s migrant population is NOT our problem! The fact that many ARAB countries do not take refugees is not our problem!

Gang of Eight bill will codify what the State Department is already doing!

Before I get to the news, let me say here that one of many problems, and a very significant one, in the Gang of Eight’s “comprehensive” immigration reform (S.744) is this line (I highlighted it on Wednesday):

a. Section 3403 – expands the President’s authority to designate “specifically defined groups of aliens” for resettlement based on either humanitarian reasons or because it “is otherwise in the national interest.”

The first part of that change means that whole groups of people could be deemed refugees just because they belong to a certain class (presently they must prove they personally are persecuted), and it is going to surely open the flood gates even wider. Asylum seekers only need to say: I’m Iraqi, I’m Somali, I’m gay, therefore I am persecuted.

But, it’s the second part that I’m focusing on here this morning, and it is troubling because we are already doing it! Illegally! We have been using the refugee program to ‘help out’ other countries for some other purpose. Can you say Uzbek airlift? (where we airlifted political dissidents/so-called refugees who had been troubling the President of Uzbekistan to the US at the time Bush wanted access to Afghanistan through Uzbekistan).

S.744 would codify what the State Department has already been doing on the sly. What the hell is “in the national interest?”

Are we trying to curry favor with the government of the UAE by taking their illegal alien Sri Lankans off their hands? Is it in our “national interest” to do so? Hmmmm?

From The National (more people in need of welfare on their way to LA!) Hat tip to Joanne:

DUBAI // Eleven Sri Lankan refugees have arrived in Los Angeles to begin their new lives after receiving care in the UAE for six months.

[….]

“We can now lead a life without fear and don’t have to live as refugees any more,” said Sivabalan Niranjani, 35, of the harrowing journey that ended when she landed in Dubai. She arrived in the US with her husband and two children yesterday.

Mrs Niranjani was seven months pregnant when she and 44 others set sail from India by boat last October to seek asylum in Australia.

Five days later their boat broke down and they had to be rescued by the Singaporean ship Pinnacle Bliss, which was en route to Jebel Ali.

[….]

When the group arrived in Dubai on October 23, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) notified the UAE of their presence.

Although the Emirates is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and not legally obliged to allow refugees to stay, they were allowed to disembark and the UN agency was granted access to determine the legitimacy of their claims for asylum.

While waiting for asylum, Mrs Niranjani gave birth to a girl in December at Dubai’s Latifa Hospital.

[….]

Babar Baloch, a spokesman for UNHCR, said the refugees’ departure was arranged by the International Organisation for Migration.

“Authorities in the US will handle refugees that have been accepted for resettlement,” Mr Baloch said.

Of the 46 who arrived in Dubai, including Mrs Naranjani’s baby, seven were sent back by the UN as they were deemed not to be in need of international protection. [Some were not legitimate refugees!—ed]

Eight were sent to Sweden and one went to the US earlier. After another 11 left for the US yesterday, 19 are left in the UAE to continue their wait.

Asylum shopping:

Kulasegaram Geetharthanan, a lawyer with Jein Solicitors in the UK, has submitted asylum applications to several consulates in Dubai on their behalf – including Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Austria, Ireland and the UK.

I guess he can take Switzerland off his list! But, we hear Ireland is very welcoming! BTW, Tamils are mostly Hindu, with about 5% Muslim population, however, the Tamil Tigers are infamous for having invented the suicide belt.

For more on Sri Lankan “refugees,” just type ‘Sri Lankan’ into our search function and see the problems both Australia and Canada are having with them arriving in boats.

*** I call it the Malta Doctrine because back in 2007 or 2008, Bush’s Ambassador to Malta set a precedent by turning “asylum seekers” (really economic migrants arriving on Malta’s coast illegally from North Africa) into refugees to be resettled in the US. Type ‘Malta’ into our search function and you will see in dozens of posts how this really illegal process has evolved turning Malta into a magnet for even more illegal migration. That is why it is so important for the refugee industry advocates to get that line into the new Gang of Eight bill—the President can deem someone or some group as being in the “national interest” to bring to America.

Switzerland attempting to stem the migrant tide, gets Brussels ticked off

04/26/2013 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

There is one European country trying to survive! Switzerland figures out that secure borders and limited migration matters!

Sarah Miller Llana, Europe Bureau Chief for Christian Science Monitor

From a distraught (and obviously biased) reporter at Christian Science Monitor:

The anti-immigration class across Europe has found many new adherents as of late, especially in the most economically devastated countries, like Greece and Italy. But now these Europeans might themselves become the unwelcome migrants, at least in Switzerland.

As I happened to be standing in the most intolerable immigration line* that I’ve ever faced – more on that later – I read on my Twitter account that the Swiss government on Wednesday announced a new policy to cap residence permits for all of Western Europe. Switzerland, which is not part of the EU but joined the Schengen bloc that allows freedom of movement of people across European borders, says that it is being overwhelmed by arrivals from across the continent, to the tune of 80,000 people each year.

So it is invoking a “safeguard clause” it negotiated during the 1999 Schengen treaty talk, which it already implemented for eight Central and Eastern European states. Now, as of May 1, residence permits for the citizens of 17 older EU states, from Germany to Spain, will be capped at 53,700 for a year.

[….]

The move drew immediate criticism from Brussels. ”The measures disregard the great benefits that the free movement of persons brings to the citizens of both Switzerland and the EU,” Catherine Ashton, EU foreign policy chief, said in a statement.

Is this a new manifestation of intolerance in Europe? The levels of resentment continent-wide against the migrants from Africa and the Middle East are already clearly documented, but in the midst of crisis, is Europe even excluding Europe? And what does that mean for identity and equality moving forward?

It means that one country may survive the onslaught, but what good will it do the Swiss (do they even have an army?) when Europe becomes a Muslim continent by 2050?

By the way, European countries are struggling with the problem of asylum shopping where so-called “refugees” move from country to country looking to get in.

* Ms. Llana reports that she was standing in an intolerable immigration line in Paris with Moroccans, Romanians, Malians, Senegalese, Tunisians, and Peruvians.

Sample State Department testimony: This one from Texas

04/26/2013 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

As regular readers here know, the US State Department will be taking testimony in mid-May on the “appropriate size and scope” of our refugee resettlement program for fiscal year 2014.

Prior to last year the testimony was almost exclusively from the federal contractors (nine major and approximately 300 subcontractors) looking for more and a greater variety of refugees to resettle to your towns and cities. Last year citizens concerned with the direction of the program actually outnumbered the contractors in the number of comments submitted.

We have described here how to prepare your testimony. I also said, I would publish any you wish me to publish.

A reader, John Williams of Texas, has sent us his letter to the US State Department and we share it here with you for inspiration and guidance. Your testimony may be long or short, detailed or general, but please send in something by the May 8th deadline!

Anne Richard
Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration
US State Department
Washington, DC. 20520

April 22, 2013

Re: Federal Register Public Notice 8241

Dear Ms Richard:

I am writing to submit written comments on the President’s FY 2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program as part of the upcoming May 15 public hearing in Washington, DC. Overall, I am writing to request that Refugee admissions be cut back dramatically to less than 5,000 admittances annually.

There are many reasons for this:

1) Recent terrorist attacks suggest many refugees being admitted pose substantial risks to the United States and its citizens. There has been a tendency to relax scrutiny of refugees and other aliens in an effort to not appear prejudicial to certain groups or religions. This effort, while perhaps well-intentioned, is naive and dangerous. Some individuals claim persecution precisely because they are considered dangerous to the country in which they live. Admitting such individuals merely moves the danger to the U.S.

2) If pending Comprehensive Immigration Reform is passed, there will suddenly be a huge additional burden to U.S. unemployment and social services rolls at a time when we can least afford it. Refugees would have to compete with millions of low-skilled workers in an already saturated job market. If we are so anxious to legalize these millions already resident, we should take prudent steps to minimize the impact on our weak economy by reducing other immigrants.

3) The existing resettlement system does not adequately take into account the desires and resources of the communities in which refugees are placed. As a result, refugees are often “dumped” into an area that is already saturated or is unable to provide the special services refugees often require. This is unfair to the community and can create a huge burden to the local tax base. The federal government should be prepared to support the refugees or not admit them.

4) Refugee settlement has become a big business that has corrupted what was supposed to be a voluntary activity. If the voluntary agencies are indeed voluntary, they should be self-funding. As long as they depend upon the federal government they will advocate increased levels of admission and funding, regardless of the true cost to local communities or society as a whole.

5) The refugee program was originally intended to provide safety to small persecuted groups and has become an open-ended tool of US foreign policy. This has perverted the purpose of the program and shows an extreme lack of sensitivity to the communities that are expected to absorb this burgeoning flow of humanity. If the program were reduced then the State Department would presumably select their admissions with better care.

6) In conjunction with the above, U.S. admissions policy has become subsumed to the needs of the UNHCR. We should not allow a foreign agency to dictate policy to the U.S., especially when it causes adverse effects to local, often small, communities in rural areas. We Americans in “flyover country” do not exist to satisfy the whims and needs of the UNHCR.

7) Finally, the current high levels of refugee admissions are causing untold damage to small communities all across the U.S. It appears the State Department is either unwilling or unable to acknowledge this very real human cost. This is perceived as callous and arrogant treatment of some of the most generous and caring people in the world. The resulting resentment generated will eventually breed a callous cynicism that will endanger other humanitarian programs deemed desirable by the State Department. This will become apparent when voters demand a general moratorium on foreign aid and an isolationist position for U.S. foreign policy.

Like many programs created by the federal government, the refugee programs have suffered from significant mission-creep and a tendency to become corrupted by the money involved. In all of this the needs of the refugees as well as the “welcoming communities” have become secondary to other priorities. The State Department needs to review the original purpose of the program and what a “voluntary agency” is supposed to be and do. A good way to begin would be to pare admissions to a minimum while re-designing how the program is administered and funded. Enough is enough.

Sincerely,

John D Williams

CC: Senator John Cornyn
Senator Ted Cruz

Representative William Flores

US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Thanks Mr. Williams!

Again, go here for instructions!

I just realized that we need to make a new category for this year. Last year some testimony and my commentary of the May meeting was posted here. I’ll make a category now for ‘Testimony for 5/15/2013 State Dept. meeting’ for your easy access going forward.