U.S. may open doors to 25,000 refugees

there is seemingly no limit to what a f**k up bush is.....

oh. okay.

so much for "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"...

the bush presidency in one word; bohica

Is this supposed to be a problem?. Bet there's lots of Iraqis supportive of U.S occupation of one persuasion or another that are going to be in deep doo doo when, not if we pull out. Sometimes, you do things that incur an obligation.

Anybody recall what the Shias in and around Basra went through for supporting us in the Gulf War?

cool. they can stay at your house, right ?

I agree with Roger, lot of doo doo for those that have helped the, er, coalition forces. See George Packer's article, Betrayed, in the New Yorker. The title sounds harsh but the pages and pages of explication he presents are chilling. 25,000 is nothing.

I know we all have divergent views on the war. If I remember correctly, Packer wasn't all so against it early on (don't trust me on this).

The situation for the translators is grim.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer

Are they alergic to cats?

Can I apply for a status of an Iraqui refugee? It may be my last chance to stay and work here legally.

Yes, and are you allergic to cats?

only persians...

Iraq's desperate exodus

Published: April 22, 2007




Four years of war have exacted a terrible toll on Iraqis, with no end in sight. Car bombings and other violence now kill an average of 100 people a day. Two out of three Iraqis have no regular access to clean water. Children are malnourished and too many are dying from preventable diseases and the near collapse of the health care system.

And an incredible total of four million people - one out of every seven Iraqis - have been forced to flee their homes. If Iraq continues this descent, the refugee tide could turn into a regional tsunami, with potentially convulsive political consequences.

Yet, as with so much about this war, the Bush administration is refusing to acknowledge the human cost of its horrendous errors and pretending that the problem will be contained within Iraq's borders. It will not.

Half of Iraq's displaced people have already fled. Jordan, a country of six million people, is now sheltering 750,000 Iraqis. Syria, with a population of 19 million, has about 1.2 million Iraqi refugees. Their governments say they are unable to keep coping with such large inflows. Jordan has already moved to limit new arrivals - barring Iraqi men between the ages of 17 and 35.

Others have been less welcoming. Kuwait has completely shut its doors. Saudi Arabia is building a $7 billion border fence to keep Iraqis out.



And then there is the United States. Washington has taken in only some 500 Iraqi refugees since the war began. The Bush administration promises to do much better this year, and officials are floating hypothetical numbers as high as 25,000. That would help. But the bumbling track record of this administration's refugee bureaucracy makes it seem unlikely. And under current policy, some of Iraq's most desperate refugees could be deemed ineligible under provisions of the Patriot and Real ID Acts that treat ransom paid to free relatives from kidnappers as "material support" for terrorism.

The administration needs to be doing a lot more. It needs to ensure that the most threatened refugees - usually those who have worked with American forces - can find safe haven here. It should provide generous assistance, well beyond the $18 million it has now pledged, to the United Nations refugee agency, to help poor countries like Jordan and Syria cope with the large numbers already there. Washington also needs to begin serious and detailed discussions with all of Iraq's neighbors - including Syria and Iran - on how to lessen the violence inside Iraq and help those who try to escape it.

Don't these people know all they have to do is to enter the US through Mexico and they are home free. :wink:



Plan for refugee status for rebels hit
May 6, 2007



ASSOCIATED PRESS
Today's foreign terrorists could become tomorrow's U.S. refugees under a Bush administration proposal to revise immigration rules.
The intent is to grant refugee status to rebels who have fought repressive governments or advanced U.S. foreign-policy objectives, particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America.
But proposed changes to immigration rules also could cover U.S. enemies, such as members of al Qaeda and fighters for Hamas and Hezbollah.
To some lawmakers, the revisions under consideration by the administration are too broad and potentially dangerous.
Officials say the changes are meant to reverse the unintended consequences of post-September 11 restrictions that have kept thousands of otherwise eligible people from a haven in the United States.
The administration wants the authority to waive those restrictions so it has as much flexibility as possible in deciding who can and cannot enter the country.
Under current law, virtually all armed nongovernmental groups are classified as terrorist organizations, and the United States is prohibited from accepting their members and combatants as refugees.
There is limited ability to grant waivers to supporters of those groups who can prove they were forced to provide assistance, but more than 10,000 people have been barred. That includes many from Burma, Laos and Vietnam, including some who fought alongside U.S. forces in the Vietnam War.
Last year, the government planned to accept 56,000 refugees; the actual number was 12,000 less, primarily because of the restrictions.
In addition, about 5,000 people already in the United States as refugees have been blocked from seeking U.S. citizenship because of the rules. About 600 people asking for political asylum have had their cases put on hold.
"This has had a devastating impact on the admission of refugees and asylum seekers," said Jennifer Daskal, U.S. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which supports the proposed changes.


Amendments to the Immigration and Naturalization Act would permit the government to waive the rules for active members and fighters of terrorist groups on a case-by-case basis.
They would cover any foreigner who has engaged in terrorist activity, said Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman.
"This amendment thus provides the executive branch with the authority to admit aliens who have engaged in armed action against oppressive regimes or in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy or both," he said.
Lawmakers, however, are skeptical of the need for such expansive changes.
"The provision in this bill would extend the waiver authority in current law to groups that are definitely not friends of the United States," said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.
Acting on behalf of a bipartisan group, Mr. Kyl in late March blocked the amendment from appearing in the Iraq war-spending bill that President Bush vetoed on Tuesday.
Mr. Kyl's office is working on wording that would cut out what he called the bill's "excesses."
A new version, giving the executive branch more limited waiver authority, could be ready as early as this week, according to aides.

I thought you all were only against "ILLEGAL" immigrants.

It looks like maybe anti-immigrant is the correct term after all.

[ebrown wonders what Iraqi (legal) immigrants and and Hispanic immigrants have in common that they are both seen as a threat.]

ebrown_p
I was just commenting that if they can't come in as legal immigrants they can always arrive as illegals by way of Mexico. I have no doubt that is the route that the terroists among them will take.