I'm honestly conflicted

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I saw this post by an Oregon immigration attorney on Facebook yesterday and it made me feel better about allowing refugees in:

Most of my friends know I practice Immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you want actual information about the process, keep reading.

I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue.

The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked.

First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process.

Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States.

We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority.

First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO).

Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan.

Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS.

Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States.

The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived.

At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family.

Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel.

Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country.

Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination.
This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years.

The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan.
Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa.
Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process.
Click to expand...
 
e_blazer said:
I saw this post by an Oregon immigration attorney on Facebook yesterday and it made me feel better about allowing refugees in:
Click to expand...

That was interesting.

Not sure how accurate or true it is. That could have been posted on Facebook by someone from Isis pretending to be an attorney. They're tricky like that.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
That was interesting.

Not sure how accurate or true it is. That could have been posted on Facebook by someone from Isis pretending to be an attorney. They're tricky like that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought of that. "Scott" could easily be "Abdul". I noticed he says he practices law in "Lebanon" like we're going to assume a city in Oregon, not a country in the Middle East. Get Wookee on his case.
 
You know how you find the lawyer in Lebanon, Oregon?

Stand on the street corner and hold up a sign with some words on it. The guy they send out to read the sign is the town lawyer.

barfo
 
e_blazer said:
I saw this post by an Oregon immigration attorney on Facebook yesterday and it made me feel better about allowing refugees in:
Click to expand...

What in the hell, bringing facts into this??

You outcher fucking mind?!
 
Further said:
With regards to taking in Syrian refugees. There are so many good points made by both sides. Anyone else conflicted?
Click to expand...

I'm not conflicted. However, my position would be a compromise. Saudi Arabia has tents and facilities galore http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/saudi-arabia-has-100000-air-conditioned-tents-sitt/ they could use. I think we tell them to take all the refugees as part of the Islamic tradition of hospitality http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/10662/treating-guests-islamic-way/

Of course, part two is a bit more troublesome. It would require us leading a coalition of foot soldiers throughout Syria to shepherd refugees to safe zones where they could be evacuated. That goal will conflict with the goals of ISIS, Russia and Iran. We'll need to enforce our will to do so. Frankly, I doubt this Administration has it.

The last thing the world wants is a Syrian diaspora. The goal should be a stable Syria where the refugees who left would return and rebuild their country. Again, that's not what ISIS, Russia or Iran wants. Right now the people that oppose their goals are self-deporting.
 
Nikolokolus said:
The terrorists who carried out the Paris attacks were homegrown.

Now I'm not saying that you can screen all bad actors, but I wonder if our current Muslim population wouldn't be even more prone to to radicalization with wanton disregard for Syrian lives.

And let's face it, ISIS is a problem we helped create with our bumbling around in Iraq for the past decade+. I've always been a "you break it, you buy it" kind of guy.
Click to expand...

BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94 said:
It's a complex situation at least we are going to be screening the refugees coming in. I don't agree with bringing them in though.
Click to expand...

The problem is the screening. If there aren't data to screen them with, then how can you vet them?
 
The current wait for refugees to gain admittance is two years, saying you'll take more doesn't necessarily mean waiving that waiting period. Prumably there is some sort of rejection criteria already being applied to current refugees?

I'm far more concerned with anglophones with U.S. and British passports who have been radicalized and can move about much more freely than any refugees ever will.
 
Sedatedfork said:
I've read more into this and read the transcript. What a stupid AP headline. I can admit when I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Thank you. And on a video after 9/11, even Anderson Cooper said openly "The radical muslims should be monitored" Also, it's not like we aren't monitored already through many outlets like DMV, voter registration, travel and polling. I think the media have blown this way overboard.
 
All this talks reminds me of the Homeland episode I watched last night.... (talking about ISIS).

CIA official: You said a program should be renewed. I'm asking is our strategy working?

Peter Quinn: What strategy?Tell me what the strategy is and I'll tell you if it's working. [Silence] See, that right there is the problem because they - they have a strategy. They're gathering right now in Raqqa by the tens of thousands, hidden in the civilian population, cleaning their weapons and they know exactly why they're there.

CIA official: Why is that?

Peter Quinn: They call it the end times. What do you think the be-headings are about? The crucifixions in Deir Hafer, the revival of slavery? Do you think they make this s*** up? It's all in the book. Their f****** book. The only book they ever read - they read it all the time. They never stop. They're there for one reason and one reason only: to die for the Caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That's their strategy and it's been that way since the seventh century
 
I am not conflicted.

I lost most of my European family in the 1930s and 1940s when no one would take Jews. The St. Louis was turned away with 900 refugees on the spurious grounds that Nazi spies might have snuck in.

There is a 2 year vetting process. This is hardly an open door process. And Trump's fantasies to the contrary, the number being brought in is outrageously small compared to the need.

Imagine having a 2 year vetting process to buy a gun! And far far more American have been killed by Americans with guns than by any terrorist.

Also point out that the acts of terror in Europe were carried out by Belgian and French citizens, not refugees.

There is one reason to oppose, Further, and that is bigotry. Something you and I know a few things about. Whipping up fear and hate against someone who is an "other".

Refugees generally make the best citizens. They are grateful for a chance at life.
 
crandc said:
They are grateful for a chance at life.
Click to expand...

Yep!

Here are two Muslim guys we took in for a chance at a better life.

boston-bomb-brothers.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RR7
OT The Boys Are Not All Right
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
jlprk
jlprk
truebluefan
Fact check: Donald Trump on the Orlando shooting
Replies
1
Views
446
stampedehero
stampedehero
magnifier661
Honduras arrests five Syrians heading to US with fake passports: report
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
BLAZINGGIANTS
B
mook
Facebrake
2 3
Replies
68
Views
5K
maxiep
maxiep
magnifier661
ISIS refugee invasion?
Replies
18
Views
2K
EL PRESIDENTE
EL PRESIDENTE

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top