As part of UNHCR’s 60 year anniversary, the agency is hosting a Refugee Congress in Washington, DC on August 3 and 4, 2011. The Congress will focus on refugees in the United States, and will provide an opportunity for the refugees themselves to share their experiences and help ensure that people still in need are not forgotten. In the end, the Refugee Congress plans to create recommendations for the U.S. Congress and to generate a report for a Ministerial Meeting in Geneva later this year.
One refugee who will attend the Congress is Haidar Al Mamoury, an Iraqi refugee who came to the U.S. in 2009. Mr. Al Mamoury was working with U.S. contractors to help rebuild Iraq when he began receiving death threats. He and his family fled the country and settled in Nashville, TN. Now, Mr. Al Mamoury is working on a Master’s Degree and encouraging his children to learn English. He hopes that the Refugee Congress will help other refugees adjust to life in the United States.
The delegates will meet at Georgetown University Law Center, and then go to Capitol Hill for a reception and to meet with different Congressional representatives. Speakers include Vincent Cochetel from UNHCR, Eskinder Negash, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and Eric P. Schwartz from the State Department Office of Population Refugees, and Migration. But the big draw is probably Alek Wek, a British-Sudanese supermodel who is a long-time advocate for refugees.
The Refugee Congress will be held in conjunction with the National Consultation, the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s annual stakeholder meeting. According to ORR, “The annual Consultation provides a unique opportunity for stakeholders throughout the network to share ideas, engage in discussion, and expand the partnerships that form the backbone of the [refugee resettlement] program.”
Hopefully these events will bring some positive attention to the plight of refugees in the U.S. and worldwide.
In the wake of revelations that two Iraqi refugees turned out to be former insurgents, the U.S. government is re-checking more than 58,000 Iraqi refugees against newly available data bases. The Los Angeles Times reports:
The investigation was given added urgency after U.S. intelligence agencies warned that Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and Yemen had tried to target the U.S. refugee stream, or exploit other immigration loopholes, in an attempt to infiltrate the country with operatives.
The Times article continues:
So far, immigration authorities have given the FBI about 300 names of Iraqi refugees for further investigation. The FBI won’t say whether any have been arrested or pose a potential threat. The individuals may have only tenuous links to known or suspected terrorists. The names were identified when authorities rechecked phone numbers, email addresses, fingerprints, iris scans and other data in immigration files of Iraqis given asylum since the war began in 2003. They checked the data against military, law enforcement and intelligence databases that were not available or were not utilized during the initial screening process, or were not searched using sufficient Arabic spelling and name variations.
It addition to the Iraqis, authorities have re-screened a smaller number of refugees from Yemen, Somalia and other countries where terrorist groups are active.
Of course, this begs the question: Why are we admitting refugees from these countries in the first place? Some commentators, including Mark Krikorian from the Center for Immigration Studies, argue that we should reduce or completely stop resettling refugees from Iraq. It’s a fair point, but let me give my reasons why I believe we should continue to bring such refugees to our country.
First, I think there is an important foreign policy benefit that accrues to us by demonstrating our loyalty to people who risked their lives to help our cause. It certainly would not serve our interest to be known as a country that uses people and then abandons them. A few months ago, Esquire magazine did an article about one of my clients who captured or killed dozens of terrorists in Iraq. Now, despite our best efforts (and an approved immigration petition), he and his family are stuck in Iraq, where they face a very real possibility of being killed. Such stories do not inspire others to stick their necks out for us.
Second, I think we have a moral obligation to assist people who face danger on account of our actions. The right thing to do is to take responsibility for our actions, and to correct problems we helped to create. As the leader of the free world, we need to set an example and do the right thing.
Third, millions of foreigners come to the U.S. every year (for example, in 2009, according to DHS, over 160 million foreigners came to the U.S. for one reason or another). If a terrorist or a criminal wants to come to the United States, entering as a refugee is probably one of the least effective ways to get here. The security screenings and other hurdles to entry are more difficult for a refugee than for almost any other category of entrant. If we close the door to refugees because we fear they might harm us, we should close the door to all other non-citizens (and the billions of dollars they contribute to our economy). Such an isolationist path seems impractical and undesirable.
Finally, to give up on our humanitarian ideals because we fear terrorism seems to me a response unworthy of our nation. Sometimes, compromise is necessary. And sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor. However, to give up on our refugee program because we fear terrorism would be a victory for the terrorists.
We certainly need to be vigilant, and we need to do a better job of screening refugees. We also need to re-check anyone who might be a security risk. But we should not end our assistance to refugees because we fear terrorism. We should not let the terrorists win.
The ICE Union disagreed and posited that the memo was a backdoor amnesty (this despite the fact that the Obama Administration has been deporting record numbers of illegal aliens and, as these statistics show, has re-prioritized deportations to focus on criminal aliens). Chris Crane, President of the National ICE Counsel, had this to say about the memo and the Obama Administration:
Any American concerned about immigration needs to brace themselves for what’s coming… this is just one of many new ICE policies in queue aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in the United States. Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration is now implementing it through agency policy.
In my prior post, I tried to give the Union the benefit of the doubt, even though their claim seemed unfounded. Now, several immigration experts, including a former general counsel of INS under President George W. Bush, have reviewed the controversial memo. They conclude that the memo is “perfectly consistent with existing law on the use of prosecutorial discretion and serve[s] to guide its sound exercise in immigration law enforcement decisions.”
The experts’ conclusion–and a plain reading of the controversial memo–makes it painfully obvious that the Union’s complaints are baseless. Worse, the attacks, such as the quote from Mr. Crane above, seem blatantly partisan in nature.
It is frankly shocking that ICE and DHS would tolerate this type of insubordination. My guess is that the Administration is too cowed by right wing bullies to do anything about the problem (witness the Shirley Sherrod fiasco). It’s past time for the Obama administration to stand up to this sort of nonsense. ICE should fire the insubordinate agents immediately.
During the first half of 2011, piracy attacks in the Indian Ocean increased by 36%. But prosecution of captured pirates remains relatively rare. In fact, four-fifths of captured pirates are released without further ado.
A recent incident is proving an exception to the rule. A group of Somali pirates was captured last February after they murdered four American on a sailboat off the coast of East Africa. The men were transported to Virginia (which apparently has a long history of prosecuting pirates). Eleven plead guilty and three others will be indicted on various charges later this month. They could face the death penalty.
The Virginia example notwithstanding, why are so few pirates being prosecuted? One reason may be logistics. It’s not easy to transport pirates from the high seas near African to a courtroom in the West (or even to Kenya, where some pirates are tried based on an international agreement). Another reason might be a fear that the pirates would claim asylum once they reached a Western country. A recent law review article by Yvonne M. Dutton explores this very question.
Professor Dutton writes that most Somali pirates would not qualify for asylum–they do not fear persecution in their country based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. She also writes that many pirate-asylum seekers would automatically be disqualified from asylum due to their criminal histories. She believes that pirates would generally not qualify for relief under the Torture Convention because they could not demonstrate a likelihood of torture if they return to their home country. And, even if a pirate-asylum seeker demonstrates that he faces torture, the U.S. could seek diplomatic assurances that he would not be tortured if returned home. Also, pirates could possibly be removed to a safe third country. Finally, Professor Dutton concludes that even if some pirates do seek asylum, that is a reasonable price to pay for assuring that pirates are prosecuted: “Captured pirates should not be able to get away with murder simply because developed nations do not wish to deal with a relatively few additional asylum claims.”
While I generally agree with her conclusions, I can’t help but think that Professor Dutton is underestimating the creativity of Somali asylum seekers (and their attorneys). There are plenty of former gang members from Central America who seek–and sometimes obtain–asylum, Withholding of Removal or Torture Convention relief. In some ways, their cases are not very different from the Somali pirates (though one key difference is that the pirates are being transported to the U.S. for prosecution, while the former gang members usually make their own way here).
I also disagree with Professor Dutton’s idea that pirates could be returned to Somalia after receiving diplomatic assurances that they will not be tortured. To the extent that Somalia has a government, I doubt it can be trusted with any diplomatic assurances.
Finally, I have real doubts that a third country would be willing to accept the pirates who we cannot return home.
These points are all pretty minor. Very few Somali pirates would qualify for asylum or any other relief if they are brought to the U.S. for trial. And–given the scope of the problem–it seems well worth the risk to end the culture of impunity that allows piracy to flourish off the African coast.
Earlier this week, the New York Times had an article about fraud and asylum, Immigrants May Be Fed False Stories to Bolster Asylum Pleas. The article was inspired by revelations about the maid who accused former-IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault. It turned out that the maid was an asylee, who likely gained asylum by fabricating a claim of past persecution.
The NY Times asked several professionals in the field–including yours truly–to contribute their thoughts about how the asylum system can be improved. Our comments appeared in a forum called Room for Debate. I suggested that the government make a greater effort to prosecute lawyers and other people who help immigrants create fraudulent cases. Not only is this more efficient than going after individual asylum seekers, but it ultimately would protect immigrants by reducing the number of fraudsters involved in the business. Here are my comments (slightly modified since my essay in the Times was limited to 300 words and here I can use as many words as I want):
Go After the Lawyers
There is an old adage in criminal law: Better that 10 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person. Our asylum law is based on the opposite philosophy: It is better to allow some asylum seekers to enter the United States fraudulently, than return one person to a country where he faces persecution or death. For this reason, the burden of proof for asylum is relatively low (as opposed to criminal law, where the burden for a conviction–beyond a reasonable doubt–is quite high).
This low burden, combined with the very valuable benefit of asylum, creates an incentive for people to make fraudulent claims. The trick is to reduce fraud without preventing legitimate asylum seekers from gaining protection.
It seems to me there are three main possibilities.
One option is to devote more resources to individual cases. If asylum officers, immigration judges and government attorneys could spend more time on each case, they would probably discover more instances of fraud. But attacking fraud on a case-by-case basis seems inefficient and, given limited resources, unlikely to significantly reduce the number of fraudulent claims.
Another option is to raise the burden of proof required to obtain asylum. The problem, of course, is that such a move would exclude legitimate asylum seekers, and would degrade the high moral standard our nation set when we created our asylum system.
A final — and to me, the most effective — option is to identify attorneys and others who prepare claims deemed suspicious. Investigating and, where appropriate, prosecuting these people can dramatically reduce fraud, since each such person produces and/or facilitates large numbers of false claims. A few high-profile prosecutions would also help deter others who might engage in such practices.
I have represented many asylum seekers, including journalists, human rights workers, diplomats, rape victims, and survivors of genocide. Such people have legitimate claims and would face persecution or worse if they returned home. In responding to fraud, we should remember our ethical responsibility to protect such people.
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service concludes that “data analysis of six selected countries (the PRC, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, and Mexico) suggests that conditions in the source countries are likely the driving force behind asylum seekers.” These six countries represent the majority of asylum seekers coming to the U.S., and the new report is significant for several reasons.
First, critics of the asylum system claim that it is a backdoor for economic migrants and that many asylum cases are fraudulent. While fraud is a problem and economic conditions certainly affect the flow of migrants (including asylum seekers), the CRS report lends support to pro-asylum types (such as myself), who believe that most asylum seekers are fleeing persecution and repression in their homelands.
Second, since CRS is the organization tasked with supporting “the Members, committees, and leaders of the House and Senate at all stages of the legislative process,” its policy papers are influential in shaping legislation. Maybe it is naive to believe that ideologues in Congress will consider the new report when making policy, but at least those in the pro-asylum camp will have some new data to help make their arguments.
Finally, there are a couple of asylum-related issues pending in the current Congress. One is the Refugee Protection Act, which offers some new protections to asylum seekers. The CRS report mentions the RFA, and seems to have been written with that bill in mind. The RFA has been floating around the Senate for over a year, and no progress seems forthcoming. However, Zoe Lofgren–a great advocate for protecting immigrants–introduced a companion bill in the House last month. So perhaps we will see some action on this front.
The other piece of asylum-related news in Congress is Senator Rand Paul’s hearing on terrorism and asylum. Senator Paul called for hearings after two Iraqi refugees were arrested on terrorism charges (I wrote about this here). The hearing is scheduled for July 13, 2011. The CRS report is relevant to this hearing as well. Although there are legitimate concerns related to national security and asylum, the instances of asylum seekers or refugees committing (or being accused of) terrorist acts are extremely rare. The report shows that many asylum seekers are genuine refugees who face persecution in their home countries. The Senate should keep this in mind when balancing national security with our humanitarian and moral responsibilities.
In a unanimous vote in June 2010, leaders of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agents’ Union accused ICE Director John Morton of “gross mismanagement within the Agency as well as efforts within ICE to create backdoor amnesty through agency policy.” Now, the union is again attacking its leadership.
In a recent press release, available here, the Union refers to new policies that were crafted based on the “desires of foreign nationals illegally in the United States.” The result of these policies, according to Union leader Chris Crane, is that “every person here illegally [can] avoid arrest or detention, as officers we will never know who we can or cannot arrest.” It seems the focus of the agents’ complaint is a memo issued last month by the ICE Director entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.” A link to the memo is available here.
After reviewing the memo, it is difficult to understand the ICE agents’ concern. Essentially, the memo states the obvious: ICE has limited resources for removing illegal aliens from the U.S. Therefore, ICE should prioritize the removal of criminal aliens and people who endanger our national security. The memo lists positive and negative factors that officers should consider when deciding how to prioritize cases. In other words, the memo basically orders ICE agents to prioritize the removal of gang members over grandmas. How this equates to a “backdoor amnesty” is a mystery.
Another complaint mentioned in the Union press release is the way policies are implemented at ICE:
Agents claim that under Director John Morton the agency always presents written policies for public consumption, but then makes “secret changes” to the policies which ICE refuses to put in writing.
It is unclear how these “secret changes” are implemented in an organization with thousands of employees. The press release continues:
The Union also alleges that ICE Field Office Directors (FODs) have confided in the Union that when the FODs raised questions about the effectiveness of the new policies, ICE Headquarters responded by telling the FODs to turn in their badges and file for retirement.
The press release ends with a plea for help from the public:
[We] are asking everyone to please email or call your Congressman and Senators immediately and ask them to help stop what’s happening at ICE, we desperately need your help.
I am an outsider and I have no idea about any “secret policies” at ICE. However, I represent many foreigners in the U.S., and I am very well aware of the rates of detention and removal of illegal aliens. In FY 2010 (the only year of the Obama Administration where statistics are available), we removed a record number of illegal aliens from the United States. And it seems we will remove even more illegal aliens in FY 2011. This hardly seems like a “backdoor amnesty.” Given the number of aliens deported from the U.S., the ICE agents’ complaints seems unfounded and–frankly–out of touch with reality.
Nevertheless, the allegations in the Union’s press release are serious and–considering the source–they must be taken seriously. If the claims in the union’s press release are true, it would raise serious concerns about operations at ICE, and Director Morton should probably be removed. On the other hand, if these allegations are exaggerations made for partisan political purposes, it is a clear case of insubordination and those responsible should be fired.
As the sexual assault case against former International Monetary Fund head and potential French president Dominique Strauss-Kahn appears to be falling apart, attention has turned to the woman who accused him of attacking her.
Mr. Strauss-Kahn was initially arrested in May and charged with attempting to rape a maid in his New York hotel room. He was released under very strict supervision and resigned his job at the IMF. Now, the conditions of his release have been dramatically eased, and the case against him appears on the verge of collapse. The reversal came about because the NY Police Department uncovered evidence that the purported victim lied about the incident and has committed various acts of fraud, including filing a phony claim for asylum.
The alleged victim is a Guinean woman who obtained her status in the U.S. in 2004 by claiming political asylum. The Daily Mail reports that the victim admitted to the NYPD that much of her asylum claim had been fabricated:
In her application for asylum to the U.S. for herself and her daughter in 2004 she said that the home she shared with her husband in Guinea was burned by soldiers for the country’s regime. Her husband was then supposedly tortured in jail where he died of his injuries. According to prosecutors, she later admitted this was a lie. Prosecutors also said that she cried when she recounted to them the story from her asylum application of how she had been gang-raped in Guinea, but later admitted that this was also a lie.
The (probably) false asylum application, combined with other evidence of fraud (including a taped phone conversation where the victim indicated she hoped to make money by pursuing charges against Mr. Strauss-Kahn) have led the prosecution to radically re-assess the credibility of the victim and the strength of their case.
If it turns out that the victim did lie on her asylum application, she faces deportation and potential jail time. But in evaluating what happened in her asylum case (and in the Strauss-Kahn affair), there are a few points to keep in mind. First, many asylum seekers with legitimate claims augment their stories with the encouragement of unscrupulous lawyers or notarios. Such asylum seekers do not understand the law and they merely follow the instructions of their lawyers. In this way, legitimate asylum seekers are sometimes denied asylum and (rightly) accused of fraud. Of course, even though such people are naive and are victims of dishonest attorneys, they are responsible for their own actions and they need to be held accountable. As the authorities investigate the Guinean woman and her asylum claim, they should determine who helped prepare the asylum case and–if that person was involved in the fraud–they should prosecute the person responsible. While asylum fraud is a problem, the best way to reduce fraud is to prosecute the attorneys or notarios who prepare fraudulent claims.
In addition, we should keep in mind that the Guinean woman is innocent until proven guilty. After Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, the press and the District Attorney essentially convicted him before evaluating the evidence. We should not make the same mistake again. Rather than rush to judgment, we should wait for the case to develop and see where the evidence leads. Asylum seekers are often people who have suffered severe traumas. Such people are particularly susceptible to manipulation and intimidation, and might sometimes change their stories under pressure. Maybe that is what happened here, and maybe not. Since we don’t yet know, we should take a lesson from the case of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, and avoid reaching a conclusion until we know more.