Secret internal government audit: at least 70% of asylum claims are fraudulent

Poster boys for fraud in US asylum system—Boston Bomber Tsarnaev brothers!

Update February 13th:  CIS reported on the House hearing on asylum fraud, here, on Tuesday.

That is what the Washington Times reported this week here (hat tip:Erich):

At least 70 percent of asylum applications showed signs of fraud, according to a secret 2009 internal government audit that found many of those cases had been approved anyway.

The 2009 fraud assessment, obtained by the House Judiciary Committee and reviewed by The Washington Times, suggests a system open to abuse and exploitation at a time when the number of people applying for asylum in the U.S. has skyrocketed, particularly along the southwestern border.

Another report obtained by the committee suggests that the government isn’t detaining most of those who apply for asylum, including those awaiting a final judgment. [As we learned this week, lawyers like those at the ACLU, are working hard to keep more asylum seekers out of detention!—ed]

Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said the documents taint the credibility of the asylum system, which is designed to provide an outlet for foreigners who face real risks of being harmed if they remain in their home countries.

“Asylum fraud undermines the integrity of our immigration system and hurts U.S. taxpayers. Once individuals are granted asylum, they receive immediate access to all major federal welfare programs. Our immigration system should be generous to those persecuted around the globe, but we must also ensure our compassion isn’t being abused by those seeking to game the system,” Mr. Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, said in a statement to The Times.

“Because our immigration laws are so loosely enforced by the Obama administration, we should not be surprised to see so much fraud in the system,” he said. “President Obama’s continued refusal to enforce our laws on the books encourages more illegal immigration and invites fraud.”  [This asylum fraud was going on in the Bush years as well, the report says it looked at claims made in 2005!—ed]


The investigators said even the 70 percent combined fraud number may be low because some of the other 30 percent of cases had problems that weren’t detected.

The report was labeled “Draft” and apparently was never released.

There is more, read it all.

Checking some numbers!

Go to the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Annual Flow Report’ for 2012.  Just a reminder, and one the Washington Times story mentions too, refugees are brought into the US through the US State Department, but asylum seekers ‘find their way’ to America on their own steam (they might be visa overstays, or illegal border crossers) who then ask for asylum and claim they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they go home.

In 2012 we brought 58,179 refugees to the US and there were 29,484 aliens granted asylum.  Assuming a 70% fraud rate, that means that 20,638 individuals lied or cheated and are now on the way to US citizenship.  And, in the meantime they are dipping into taxpayers’ wallets.

British-Syrian TV pundit causes firestorm, says Syrian refugees should not come to UK

If all Syrians coming to America were like the UK’s Halla Diyab, the Leftwingers would be leading the charge to STOP Syrians from coming here.

She suggested they go to neighboring countries where they are among people of their own culture!  And, the horror, she questions who will pay for all the Syrians?  For that, she is labeled ‘Syria’s Sarah Palin.’

One country she lists as a better place to send Syrian refugees is deportation-nation Saudi Arabia!

From Al-Arabiya News (hat tip: ‘pungentpeppers’):

A British-Syrian TV pundit is threatening to sue social media users who slander her or threaten her life after her recent controversial views regarding not allowing Syrian refugees to come to Britain were aired on a BBC program.

Halla Diyab, a writer and producer based in London, told BBC One’s This Week news program that Syrian refugees would be better off seeking asylum in neighboring Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt – rather than coming to England where they will face a cultural barrier such as not being able to speak English.

Syrian refugees shouldn’t be “picky and choosey,” she told the BBC’s Andrew Neil.

She also voiced concerns over how much allowing Syrian refugees into the country would cost British taxpayers.

Many people publicly condemned Diyab’s views referring to her as “Syria’s Sarah Palin”;’ however, the British-Syrian pundit is now concerned the criticism has went too far with some angry viewers saying she is an Assad-loyalist and others making comments about her morality.

There is much wailing and moaning from the ‘humanitarian’ crowd who call her insensitive.  You can read all of that yourself.  I guess she, or they, don’t know that some of their ‘humanitarian’ brethren would agree with Diyab (here).

Then she asked who will pay for all of this?

And, if peace comes, will they go home or will taxpayers continue to support them?  Yikes! The ultimate sin to ask those questions!

During one part of Diyab’s BBC appearance, now available online, Diyab takes a sip of coffee, and asks: “If Syria returns to peace, will the British government force them to go back to Syria or will they stay here forever?

“As a British taxpayer, will I be requested to subsidize for a new Syrian population in this country?”

“It would be much better for them to stay in neighboring countries that are close to Syria culturally and demographically, like the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon,” she added.

And, the you-know-what hit the fan on social media.  Hang in there Halla!

The answer is yes, of course, these refugee resettlements are always permanent, even when the word ‘temporary’ is bandied about.

Regarding our photo caption.  Consider for a moment what would happen to the immigration issue if a large majority of immigrants arriving in America, or the West generally, said they would vote for conservatives.  In a heartbeat, the political Left would be demanding we halt all immigration!  Heck, they might be at the border with guns!