Transferring the US Refugee Program from the State
Department to DHS makes sense. The State Department has conducted diplomacy using bribes of foreign aid and compliance with bad ideas like the UN Refugee program. That isn't working for us.
The U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is already a component of the United States Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The key to controlling immigration is to control visas
and deporting overstays. We certainly
need to formally quit the UN Refugee program and we need to stop allowing
refugees to enter the US. See articles
below:
White House Weighs Taking Refugee Programs Away From
State Department. Mike Pompeo’s first test could be a plan to remove refugee
aid from Foggy Bottom. By Dan DeLuce and Robbie Gramer, 5/2/18
Either people are legitimate refugees deserving a shot at a better life and have no other options, or not. The program shouldn’t be used in any carrot/stick foreign policy wrangling.
Mike Pompeo’s first test could be a plan to remove refugee aid from Foggy Bottom. Using refugee decisions as leverage! It is all Stephen Miller’s fault!
Either people are legitimate refugees deserving a shot at a better life and have no other options, or not. The program shouldn’t be used in any carrot/stick foreign policy wrangling.
Mike Pompeo’s first test could be a plan to remove refugee aid from Foggy Bottom. Using refugee decisions as leverage! It is all Stephen Miller’s fault!
The
Trump administration is considering shifting migration programs worth billions
of dollars out of the U.S. State Department to another government agency, a
move that would signal a historic shift in how refugees are handled, according
to current and former officials.
The
idea was floated last year, but former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson fended
off the move after humanitarian organizations, diplomats, and lawmakers from
both parties argued against the change. After Tillerson’s firing in March,
however, the proposal is back on the table.
At
issue is the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration,
which manages a budget of roughly $3.4 billion. The bureau, which oversees the
U.S. government’s refugee program, is a critical tool of American diplomacy,
according to current and former officials.
Opponents
of the move argue that shifting the bureau out of Foggy Bottom would undermine
America’s international influence and reinforce a perception abroad that the
United States no longer places a priority on helping refugees fleeing war or
persecution.
The
internal debate over who should oversee the country’s refugee program comes as
aid groups and lawmakers blasted the Trump administration’s admissions policy,
accusing the White House of abandoning America’s moral and diplomatic
leadership while the world faces the worst refugee crisis in history.
If
current trends hold, in fiscal year 2018 the United States is poised to accept
the lowest number of refugees since 1980, roughly 20,000 to 23,000, according
to aid groups. That number is far lower than the White House-set 45,000
maximum, a drastic reduction compared to the historic average.
The
proposal could also be a key test of the new secretary of state, Mike Pompeo,
and his influence with the president. Pompeo has repeatedly vowed to shore up morale and restore “swagger” to the beleaguered diplomatic corps,
which felt marginalized during his predecessor’s tenure.
Pompeo
has made no final decision on the issue, but former diplomats say he would be
giving up significant funding for his department and an important diplomatic
tool if he agreed to the proposed reorganization.
Officials
in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) favor transferring the
overseas humanitarian assistance programs out of the State Department bureau
to the U.S. Agency for International Development, which handles other relief
programs. USAID is supposed to follow the secretary of state’s overall guidance
on foreign policy, but it operates as an independent agency and often has turf
battles with Foggy Bottom.
Both
OMB and USAID officials contend the shift would produce a more effective and
cost-efficient approach, and that the current system allows for duplication or
confusing outcomes.
As
an example, they cite the crisis in Myanmar, where USAID delivers assistance to
Rohingya families displaced inside the country while the State Department
provides aid to Rohingya refugees in neighboring Bangladesh.
But
an independent study commissioned last year by the State Department assessed
the effect of a possible reorganization of the bureau and concluded that such a
move would not save money, a source familiar with the study
tells Foreign Policy. OMB officials, however,
are not convinced and want to commission an entirely new study to assess the
financial impact of reorganizing the bureau, the source says.
The
OMB declined to comment for this article. A State Department spokesperson says,
“the administration is in the process of reviewing agencies throughout the
executive branch in pursuit of increased efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability” as part of an executive order signed by the president last
year.
Under
previous presidents, the National Security Council and the State Department led
discussions on refugee policy. But under President Donald Trump, the Department
of Homeland Security and the White House Domestic Policy Council are driving
the debate, current and former officials say. As a result, domestic politics —
and the president’s pledge to crack down on all forms of immigration — have
shaped decision-making.
In
announcing the 45,000 cap on refugees last year, the White House said the president’s decision represented a “responsible
approach to promote the safety of the American people.”
But
critics say the Trump White House has wildly overstated the potential threat
posed by refugees, who undergo elaborate vetting overseen by DHS, the FBI, and
intelligence agencies, and that Trump’s advisors fail to grasp the strategic
implications of an about-face in America’s stance on refugees.
“This
administration has viewed resettlement through a domestic policy and political
lens. What they have failed to capture and understand is that refugee
resettlement is purposefully grounded in our foreign policy,” says Nazanin Ash,
vice president of public policy and advocacy at the International Rescue
Committee.
The
38-year-old legislation that set up the country’s refugee program intentionally
empowers the secretary of state to set policy and pledge humanitarian
assistance in crises, says Ash, a former State Department official. “It helps
with regional stability and security. Part of our leverage is saying, ‘We will
take a certain number of refugees,’” she says.
The
bureau’s programs allow U.S. diplomats to help broker peace agreements or
defuse tensions in volatile parts of the world, former senior officials say.
“When
our diplomats attend international conferences, when they negotiate issues
like access, protection, when they’re looking at negotiations
surrounding peace settlements, having those resources right by their side is a
critical component of American power and influence, and our ability to achieve
outcomes that we desire,” a former senior State Department official says.
In
2015, then-Secretary of State John Kerry was able to persuade Kenya to not
close a large refugee camp that would have forced Somalis back to their
war-torn home country. The bureau’s overseas assistance programs gave Kerry
leverage, as he could offer tens of millions of dollars worth of aid to
alleviate the refugee burden shouldered by Nairobi, former officials say.
“What
they’re doing to [the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration] and how
they’re treating refugees is just an embarrassment to our country,” says one
senior State Department official. “They just keep planning on gutting [the
bureau].”
Last
year, the White House also considered stripping the bureau of its role coordinating
the admission of refugees to the United States, and moving it to the Department
of Homeland Security. That idea has been dropped and is not currently under
consideration, officials say.
But
representatives at aid organizations and former diplomats worry that if the
bureau’s major programs are handed over to USAID, the Trump administration
would then seek to whittle away on what’s left of the office, including its
authority over refugee admissions policy.
Those
concerns were reinforced when the administration recently chose Andrew Veprek
to serve as deputy assistant secretary at the refugee bureau. Now in a senior
role at the bureau, Veprek holds hard-line views on refugees that have raised
alarms among State Department officials.
Several
current and former State Department and White House officials say Veprek, a
midlevel foreign service officer, argued for more restrictions on admitting
refugees when he served under White House senior advisor Stephen Miller, who
has masterminded the president’s anti-immigration agenda. In an internal debate
in the administration last year, Veprek pushed hard to scale back the number of
refugees who could be admitted to the United States, while portraying them as a
serious security threat.
“He
is a true believer in the Trump immigration agenda,” says a former
administration official, speaking to FP on
condition of anonymity.
Veprek’s
recent appointment prompted a letter on Tuesday from a dozen Democratic senators, who
raised concerns about his relatively junior rank as a foreign service officer
and his track record on immigration and refugees.
“His
appointment is the equivalent of placing a lieutenant colonel into a one-star
general position,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo.
The
senators urged Pompeo to “impress upon Mr. Veprek the value of implementing a
robust refugee resettlement program and recommit to U.S. leadership in
resettling the most vulnerable populations in the world.”
The
letter amounted to a warning shot from Senate Democrats to the administration,
which has yet to nominate someone to head the refugee bureau and oversee
Veprek.
“This
is just another troubling signal that this administration intends to continue
dismantling our nation’s already crippled refugee program,” they wrote.
Trump White House (again) thinking about moving refugee admissions OUT of State Department, by Ann Corcoran 5/3/18
The
stated reason to consider moving the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) to
the independent USAID is to save money by bringing our admissions program and
humanitarian foreign aid together under one roof.
What will new Secretary of State Pompeo
do? (out-going Rex Tillerson appeared to have been hands-off when it came to
refugees).
I’m in no position to judge the wisest place to move it, but I am eager
to see the little fiefdoms fall and cozy relationships broken between
resettlement contractors and DOS bureaucrats.
And, I have long maintained that refugee admission decisions should not
be used as part of our foreign policy wheeling and dealing!
As
early as 2012 (when the State Department did formerly invite comment on the program), I
gave10 reasons for a moratorium and this is my number seven:
7) Congress needs to specifically disallow the
use of the refugee program for other purposes of the US Government, especially using certain refugee
populations to address unrelated foreign policy objectives—Uzbeks, Kosovars,
Meshketians and Bhutanese (Nepalese) people come to mind.
If
I were to write that today, I would be adding those Australian detainees we are
magically transforming in to legitimate refugees for your American towns!
But,
that is exactly what a spokeswoman for the International Rescue Committee is arguing at Foreign Policy in a story entitled: White House Weighs Taking
Refugee Programs Away From State Department
The article is
long, but it is worth reading the whole thing. Here, however, are a few snips:
The
Trump administration is considering shifting migration programs worth billions
of dollars out of the U.S. State Department to another government agency, a
move that would signal a historic shift in how refugees are handled, according
to current and former officials.
The idea was floated last year, but former Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson fended off the move after humanitarian organizations, diplomats, and
lawmakers from both parties argued against the change. After Tillerson’s firing
in March, however, the proposal is back on the table.
At
issue is the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration,
which manages a budget of roughly $3.4 billion. The bureau, which oversees the U.S.
government’s refugee program, is a critical tool of American diplomacy,
according to current and former officials.
Opponents
of the move argue that shifting the bureau out of Foggy Bottom would undermine
America’s international influence and reinforce a perception abroad that the
United States no longer places a priority on helping refugees fleeing war or
persecution.
The
internal debate over who should oversee the country’s refugee program comes as
aid groups and lawmakers blasted the Trump administration’s admissions policy,
accusing the White House of abandoning America’s moral and diplomatic
leadership while the world faces the worst refugee crisis in history. [Blah, blah, blah!—-ed]
Officials in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
favor transferring the overseas humanitarian assistance programs out of the
State Department bureau to the U.S. Agency for International Development, which
handles other relief programs. USAID
is supposed to follow the secretary of state’s overall guidance on foreign
policy, but it operates as an independent agency and often has turf battles
with Foggy Bottom. [The
earlier discussion about moving the USRAP focused around moving it to Homeland
Security.—ed]
Under
previous presidents, the National Security Council and the State Department led
discussions on refugee policy. But under
President Donald Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House
Domestic Policy Council are driving the debate, current and former officials
say. As a result, domestic politics — and the president’s pledge to crack down
on all forms of immigration — have shaped decision-making. [This is a reference to the ‘evil’ Stephen Miller—ed]
The IRC must
see itself as a wing of US policy making! Does IRC CEO David Miliband still
fancy himself as Britain’s foreign secretary?
Nazanin Ash here at the Clinton Global
Initiative says refugee admission decisions can be used as leverage. So
‘refugees’ are pawns?
“This
administration has viewed resettlement through a domestic policy and political
lens. What they have failed to capture and understand is that refugee
resettlement is purposefully grounded in our foreign policy,” says Nazanin Ash, vice president of public policy
and advocacy at the International Rescue Committee.
The
38-year-old legislation that set up the country’s refugee program intentionally
empowers the secretary of state to set policy and pledge humanitarian
assistance in crises, says Ash, a former State Department official. “It helps
with regional stability and security. Part of our leverage is saying, ‘We will take a certain number of
refugees,’” she says.
Those
concerns were reinforced when the administration recently chose Andrew Veprek
to serve as deputy assistant secretary at the refugee bureau. Now in a senior
role at the bureau, Veprek holds hard-line views on refugees that have raised
alarms among State Department officials.
Several
current and former State Department and White House officials say Veprek, a
midlevel foreign service officer, argued for more restrictions on admitting
refugees when he served under White
House senior advisor Stephen Miller, who has masterminded the president’s
anti-immigration agenda. In an internal debate in the
administration last year, Veprek pushed hard to scale back the number of
refugees who could be admitted to the United States, while portraying them as a
serious security threat.
“He
is a true believer in the Trump immigration agenda,” says a former
administration official, speaking to FP on condition of anonymity.
(A
website called ‘Diplopundit’ gives us their negative views on the
mysterious Mr. Veprek.) Is
the Jihad Caucus back? (Those were the Democrat Senators
who pushed for about a hundred thousand Syrians to be admitted to the US when
they thought Hillary was on her way in to the White House.)
Foreign Policy continues….
Veprek’s recent appointment prompted a letter on
Tuesday from a dozen Democratic senators, who raised concerns about his relatively
junior rank as a foreign service officer and his track record on immigration
and refugees.
Joining
Jersey Bob Menendez in that letter to Secretary of State Pompeo were the usual
suspects, but surprisingly some of the leaders of the Jihad Caucus from 2015
are absent, hmmm? No Dianne Feinstein, no Amy Klobuchar?
Joining
Menendez in sending the letter were Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.); Patrick
Leahy (D-Vt.); Ben Cardin (D-Md.); Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.); Jeanne Shaheen (D-
N.H.); Chris Murphy (D-Conn.); Cory Booker (D-N.J.); Kirsten Gillibrand
(D-N.Y.); Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.); Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); and Bob Casey
(D-Pa.).
Read
the whole Foreign Policy article here.
Contact the President (see
link in upper right hand side bar here at RRW). Tell him what you think should be done with the
UN/US Refugee Admissions Program.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment