“Terrorism bars” could be hurdle to overcome for Syrian refugees to get into US

You can bet the federal refugee contractors are working overtime to get Syrian groups exempted from “terrorism bars” that have helped slow the flow of certain groups of refugees to the US in recent years.

David Garfield of the Garfield Law Group: “For Syrians, I think it’s going to be a major problem.”

It’s ironic that as Obama sends weapons to Syrian ‘rebels,’ he is indeed creating more impediments to refugee resettlement.

Here is the story at Salon:

Authorized by Congress, the CIA has started sending weapons to Syrian rebels. But under a legal definition of terrorism adopted by the U.S. government after the Sept. 11 attacks, those same rebel groups are considered terrorist organizations.

The designation could prevent some of the more than 2 million refugees who have fled Syria from coming to the United States, even if they haven’t actually taken up arms against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Groups that appear on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations have long been banned from entering the U.S. But two antiterrorism laws, the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act, also bar members of armed rebel groups that aren’t specifically designated as terrorist organizations.

The provisions, sometimes known as terrorism bars, apply to all armed rebel groups — even ones the U.S. is actively supporting.

The bars also deny entry to anyone who has given any kind of “material support” — transportation, shelter, money — to such groups.

The U.S. has accepted only 64 Syrian refugees in the last two years, according to a State Department spokeswoman. But it’s unclear how many, if any, Syrians have run afoul of the terrorism bars to date.

US planning to take 2,000 Syrians in FY2014, the trick will be finding 2,000 with no affiliation to the rebel groups!

But the U.N. is preparing to resettle up to 2,000 Syrians in the coming months, said Larry Yungk, senior resettlement officer for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in Washington, and the terrorism bars could be a hurdle to resettling them in the U.S.

Washington, DC immigration lawyer:  It is going to be a big problem!  The law does not differentiate terrorists by good terrorists (the ones we like) and bad terrorists (the ones we are opposing)!

David Garfield, a Washington lawyer who has represented immigrants caught up by the terrorism bars, was more blunt.

“For Syrians, I think it’s going to be a major problem,” Garfield said. “The thing about this law that’s so bizarre is that it doesn’t matter who you’re trying to overthrow.”

A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman, Christopher Bentley, said in a statement to ProPublica that “any Syrians who do apply for refugee or asylum status could be subject” to the bars.

The Citizenship and Immigration website makes clear just how sweeping the laws are: “Significantly, there is no exception under the law for ‘freedom fighters,’ so most rebel groups would be considered to be engaging in terrorist activity even if fighting against an authoritarian regime.” The website also states that refugees can be barred for “providing food, helping to set up tents, distributing literature, or making a small monetary contribution” to rebel groups.

There is a lot more, read it all, including the lengthy discussion about getting exemptions from the “terrorism bars.”  And, note this:

Citizenship and Immigration would not say whether any exemptions for Syrian groups were in the pipeline.

I’ll betcha a buck that they are!

Photo is from Garfield’s immigration law group facebook page, here.

UNHCR puts pressure on reluctant ‘Bhutanese’ to choose third country resettlement

The camps in Nepal housing the Bhutanese refugees (who are really ethnic Nepalis and not Bhutanese) are being depleted because the US and other Western countries, but mostly the US, got in the middle of a dispute going on between Bhutan and Nepal and resettled nearly 80,000 camp dwellers.  It is still beyond me why the Bush Administration agreed to the resettlement plan.

Some of the camp dwellers, then and now, wanted the West to push for their “right to return” to Bhutan, and heck why wouldn’t they think the UN would help them when the UN continues after, what, 60 plus years!, to pressure Israel about a “right to return” for Palestinians.   And, of course one wonders why Nepal couldn’t just take its own ethnic kinfolk back!

Beldangi-2 camp in 2007 where clashes broke out between two refugee factions—one that wanted third country resettlement and the other that was holding out hope for repatriation to Bhutan.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that big corporations (and people like Norquist’s pals) needed docile cheap LEGAL labor.  Some big companies (especially meat packers) had already run into problems with the litigious Somalis and I surmise they then sent the word to the Bush State Department that they wanted workers who weren’t going to be troublemakers.

And, readers, remember that one of the great benefits to employers who want to keep wages down is that some of the living expenses of legal “refugees” are being covered by you, the taxpayer.

Of course we can’t discount the likelihood of the resettlement contractors needing a new batch of clients and therefore driving the resettlement.  Contractors are paid by the head to resettle refugees.

Back in Nepal there are still camp residents who don’t want to come and live “like beggars” in some American inner-city and are holding out for repatriation to Bhutan.  Here they are complaining that the UNHCR is (still!) putting pressure on them to sign up for third country resettlement.

From The Himalayan:

DAMAK: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee has granted a month’s deadline to Bhutanese refugees who had earlier filled forms for third country settlement, to reconfirm their choice.

Since the process of third country resettlement of refugees began in 2008, at least 83,000 Bhutanese refugees have been settled in eight countries, including US, New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Britain and Norway. Now, the UN Refugee Agency has granted a month-long deadline to those who had filled the interest forms for third country resettlement, but could not be contacted later.

The commission has notified all the three refugee camps at Beldangi, Damak and Shanischare, Morang. “We’ve granted extra time for those who had earlier filled the forms but failed to appear in the interview for the same. We have sent them forms to notify us their final wish,” said UNHCR Nepal office External Relationship Officer Nini Gurung, adding her office is now collecting the latest data of those who are willing to settle in a third country.

“I’ve got a form and I’ve written that I don’t have any interest in settling down in a third country,” said Beldangi-2 camp secretary Sanchahang Subba, adding that those refugees who want to return to their homeland were worried after hearing about the latest move of the commission. Harkajung Subba, one of the refugees who wants to return to his homeland, accused the UNHCR of trying to pile pressure on refugees to opt for third country resettlement.

Photo is from this story about the violent conflicts.  Those wishing to return to Bhutan believed that once their numbers were depleted by “dispersing their people to the four winds” there would be no hope of pressuring the Bhutanese government.

We have written a lot about the Bhutanese refugee resettlement, click here to view our archive.  Some have done well in the US, others have had lots of problems (and are creating some problems too according to sources who have worked with them!).

Boondoggle? UN building state-of-the-art refugee camp near Jordan/Saudi border as Syrian refugee flow slows

I thought I did my duty for today in reporting Syrian refugee “crisis” news, here, but can’t resist posting another story after seeing this report of a ‘ghost’ refugee camp being built by the UN (surely with millions of your tax dollars).

“…bizarre sight of thousands of restrooms that appeared to march across the desolate landscape,” reporter Richard Read. Photo: Jamie Francis

Every day I receive alerts on many refugee topics.  Today my ‘Syria’ alert was filled to over-flowing with stories on the Syrian refugee “crisis,” “catastrophe:” not enough foreign aid, not enough schools for the children, too much criminal activity in camps, no money, no money, send money, etc. etc…. and then this:  ‘United Nations builds giant refugee camp in the desert, but will it be used?’

From The Oregonian:

AL AZRAQ, Jordan –- There’s a big mystery in the desert near Jordan’s border with Saudi Arabia, and on Tuesday photographer Jamie Francis and I went to investigate it.   [I wonder how the Saudis feel about its nearness to their border—ed]

Here on barren volcanic soil, the United Nations is building a gigantic refugee camp designed for a new influx of Syrians fleeing the war next door.

Preparations are impressive – this may be the most carefully planned refugee camp anywhere in the world, designed to house as many as 130,000 eventually. But despite tens of millions of dollars invested, it’s impossible to say when or whether Al Azraq camp will ever be used.

[…..]

I interviewed a top international migration official who confirmed that for now, the Syrian refugee flow into Jordan has slowed to a trickle. At times, as many as 4,000 Syrians a day arrived in Jordan. But the daily number has dropped to between 120 and 150, said Davide Terzi, chief of mission to Jordan for the International Organization for Migration.

So, let’s see, Camp Al Azraq will hold 130,000, it’s nearly finished, that means 130,000 Syrians (if they aren’t coming to Jordan bring them over from Lebanon) could be housed there instead of being resettled in the West until the Syrian civil war is over.  And, think of this enormous benefit—-they would still be in their own “culture zone!”

Syrian couple waiting for decision on asylum in Jamaica

This is an update of the fishy story we posted on August 13th.

UNHCR coming to the rescue!

This Syrian couple with phony travel documents made it around the world—from Syria, to Lebanon, to Russia, to Cuba, to The Cayman Islands and were finally detained on their way to the US in Jamaica where they quickly asked for asylum.  Until Jamaica, not one country noticed they had the same birth date on both of their passports?  My guess is that this was some sort of a trial run.

Here is the latest news from Kingston’s The Gleaner:

The future of a Syrian couple seeking asylum in Jamaica since August is now under consideration by the Refugee Eligibility Committee and a decision is expected by the end of September, according to the Ministry of National Security.

The couple, identified as Fadi Al Lababidi and Hayat Hejazi, arrived in Jamaica from The Cayman Islands, en route to the United States in early August, but were denied landing permission by immigration authorities after suspicions were raised about travel documents.

[….]

The couple’s itinerary indicated that they “travelled from Syria to Beirut (Lebanon), Moscow (Russia), Havana (Cuba), and Grand Cayman to Kingston. They stated that they did not seek asylum in Lebanon or Russia because they felt these countries were friendly with the Syrian government”.

International asylum law says that legitimate ‘asylum seekers’ must ask for asylum in the first safe country in which they land; it’s not supposed to be a shopping expedition for the country of one’s choice.  So why didn’t they ask in Cuba or The Cayman’s?  And, where did these poor ‘refugees’ get the money necessary for a globe-trotting adventure?

Someone dares to say it: rich Muslim countries should take their share of refugees!

Related Update July 31:  Abbott beware, three of Obama’s “brains” arriving to help Rudd get re-elected, here.

Australia is awash with boat people mostly from Muslim countries like Afghanistan.  What to do with them is really a pivotal issue in upcoming elections.  Here in The Australian’s “Talking Points” section are two suggestions.

Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott

WRITING about the influx of illegal immigrants across the southern border of the US, columnist Michelle Malkin bluntly referred to it as an invasion. That is what Australia is experiencing now, and Tony Abbott is right in planning to put a top general in charge.

One solution to the problem of asylum-seekers is to airlift them to the nearest UN refugee camp where they can take their turn in line with all those who have been waiting.

At the same time, Australia should request wealthy and stable Muslim countries to take their share of those fleeing from violence. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Gulf Emirates are wealthy and stable and import large numbers of workers. They should be expected to take their share.

I don’t know about Qatar and the Gulf Emirates, but Saudi Arabia takes no refugees.  In fact there were many reports about the Saudi’s immediately sending Somalis, who were caught in SA, back to Mogadishu when it was controlled by the terrorists.  The UNHCR is skittish, to say the least, about pressuring the ethnic nationalist Saudis.

Update:  A reader just reminded me of a post I wrote in April about the UAE passing off their illegal immigrants to the US.

Way back in 2007, when Muslim refugees were being brought to the county where I live by the Virginia Council of Churches, I remember former Congressman Roscoe Bartlett asking logically ‘why aren’t they going to Saudi Arabia?’  Why of course, excellent idea!

Always remember, this is not about the poor and downtrodden (that is the pretense!), it is about Al Hijra!

Let me know if you are having trouble viewing the photo—it just disappeared for me.