Need to Know Facts on EB-5 Visa Program

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

In 1999, yes under President Bill Clinton and selling out sovereignty under a globalist agenda:

FAS: The immigrant investor visa was created in 1990 to benefit the U.S. economy through employment creation and an influx of foreign capital into the United States. The visa is also referred to as the EB-5 visa because it is the fifth employment preference immigrant visa category. The EB-5 visa provides lawful permanent residence (i.e., LPR status) to foreign nationals who invest a specified amount of capital in a new commercial enterprise in the United States and create at least 10 jobs. The foreign nationals must invest $1,000,000, or $500,000 if they invest in a rural area or an area with high unemployment (referred to as targeted employment areas or TEAs).

There are approximately 10,000 visas available annually for foreign national investors and their family members (7.1% of the worldwide employment-based visas are allotted to immigrant investors and their derivatives). In FY2015, there were 9,764 EB-5 visas used, with 93% going to investors from Asia. More specifically, 84% were granted to investors from China and 3% were granted to those from Vietnam.

In general, an individual receiving an EB-5 visa is granted conditional residence status. After approximately two years the foreign national must apply to remove the conditionality (i.e., convert to full-LPR status). If the foreign national has met the visa requirements (i.e., invested and sustained the required money and created the required jobs), the foreign national receives full LPR status. If the foreign national investor has not met the requirements or does not apply to have the conditional status removed, his or her conditional LPR status is terminated, and, generally, the foreign national is required to leave the United States, or will be placed in removal proceedings.

In 1992, Congress established the Regional Center (Pilot) Program, which created an additional pathway to LPR status through the EB-5 visa category. Regional centers are “any economic unit, public or private, which [are] involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.” The program allows foreign national investors to pool their investment in a regional center to fund a broad range of projects within a specific geographic area. The investment requirement for regional center investors is the same as for standard EB-5 investors. As the use of EB-5 visas has grown, so has the use of the Regional Center Program. In FY2014, 97% of all EB-5 visas were issued based on investments in regional centers. Unlike the standard EB-5 visa category, which does not expire, the Regional Center Program is set to expire on September 30, 2016.

Different policy issues surrounding the EB-5 visa have been debated. Proponents of the EB-5 visa contend that providing visas to foreign investors benefits the U.S. economy, in light of the potential economic growth and job creation it can create. Others argue that the EB-5 visa allows wealthy individuals to buy their way into the United States.

In addition, some EB-5 stakeholders have voiced concerns over the delays in processing EB-5 applications and possible effects on investors and time sensitive projects. Furthermore, some have questioned whether U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the expertise to administer the EB-5 program, given its embedded business components. The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG) has recommended that USCIS work with other federal agencies that do have such expertise, while USCIS has reported that it has taken steps internally to address this issue. USCIS has also struggled to measure the efficacy of the EB-5 category (e.g., its economic impact). USCIS methodology for reporting investments and jobs created has been called into question by both the DHS OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Furthermore, some have highlighted possible fraud and threats to national security that the visa category presents. In comparison to other immigrant visas, the EB-5 visa faces additional risks of fraud that stem from its investment components. Such risks are associated with the difficulty in verifying that investors’ funds are obtained lawfully and the visa’s potential for large monetary gains, which could motivate individuals to take advantage of investors and can make the visa susceptible to the appearance of favoritism. USCIS has reported improvements in its fraud detection but also feels certain statutory limitations have restricted what it can do. Additionally, GAO believes that improved data collection by USCIS could assist in detecting fraud and keeping visa holders and regional centers accountable.

Lastly, the authority of states to designate TEAs has raised concerns. Some have pointed to the inconsistency in TEA designation practices across states and how it could allow for possible gerrymandering (i.e., all development occurs in an area that by itself would not be considered a TEA). Others contend that the current regulations allow states to determine what area fits their economic needs and allow for the accommodation of commuting patterns.

In addition to the issues discussed above, Congress may consider whether the Regional Center Program should be allowed to expire, be reauthorized, or made permanent, given its expiration on September 30, 2016. In addition, Congress may consider whether any modifications should be made to the EB-5 visa category or the Regional Center Program. Legislation has been introduced in the 114th Congress that would, among other provisions, amend the program to try to address concerns about fraud, and change the manner in which TEAs are determined. Other bills would create an EB-5-like visa category for foreign national entrepreneurs who do not have their own capital but have received capital from qualified sources, such as venture capitalists. Read more here.

Obama’s Climate Change Treaty or Accord, Skirts Senate

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

Obama’s Violating the Constitution by Not Submitting Climate Treaty to Senate

DailySignal/Senator Mike Lee and Congressman Mike Kelly:

Today at United Nations Headquarters in New York City, Secretary of State John Kerry and representatives of over 130 nations will sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change agreement that was negotiated in Paris last December.

According to President Obama, this “historic agreement” will “hold every country accountable” if they fail to meet its carbon emission targets.

The White House has also acknowledged that the agreement contains “legally binding” provisions designed to create a “long-term framework” that will force the United States and signatory countries to reduce carbon emissions for decades to come.

Despite these facts, President Obama has already announced he will not submit the Paris Climate Agreement to the Senate for advice and consent. Instead, the White House claims the signature environmental achievement of the president’s tenure is just an “international agreement” not meriting Senate attention.

If the stakes weren’t so high, this claim would be laughable on its face.

Not only was this agreement’s predecessor, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, submitted to the Senate and approved as a treaty, but when the Senate ratified that treaty, the Foreign Relations Committee specifically reported that any future emissions targets agreed to through the Convention “would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.”

President Obama has chosen to ignore this directive.

He has also chosen to ignore the State Department’s eight-factor test that is used to determine “whether any international agreement should be brought into force as a treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty.”

Those eight factors are:

1) The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole (the agreement’s carbon reductions will inflict costs on every American who consumes energy)

2) Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws (the agreement will force states to meet emission targets)

3) Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress (Congress will have to appropriate money for the agreement’s Green Climate Fund)

4) Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements (the agreement’s predecessor was submitted as a treaty)

5) The preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement (Congress wants to vote on this agreement)

6) The degree of formality desired for an agreement (the agreement is a highly detailed 31-page document)

7) The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of concluding a routine or short-term agreement (the agreement sets emissions targets decades in advance)

8) The general international practice as to similar agreements (there are many, but the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is just one example)

The only reason President Obama is not sending the Paris Climate Agreement to the Senate as a treaty is that he knows the Senate would handily reject it.

This is an unacceptable breach of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, and Congress must do something about it.

That is why we have introduced a concurrent resolution in the House and Senate expressing the sense of Congress that the Paris Climate Agreement must be submitted to the Senate as a treaty for its advice and consent.

If President Obama fails to do so, then Congress must prevent its implementation by forbidding any payments to the agreement’s “Green Climate Fund,” an international slush fund included in the Paris agreement to induce developing nations to sign the agreement.

If Congress fails to specifically prohibit taxpayer money from being spent implementing the Paris Climate Agreement, then they will be complicit in President Obama’s subversion of the Constitution.

*****

More reading on the facts of the Accord, or whatever it is called that will not receive a Senate vote:

FAS: On April 22, 2016, as many as 155 countries intend to sign the new international Paris Agreement to address greenhouse-gas-induced climate change. No international agreement to date has attracted as many signatures on the opening day of the year-long signature period. Eight nations—all perceiving themselves as particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change—plan to deposit their instruments of ratification as well.

Delegations of 195 nations adopted the Paris Agreement on December 12, 2015. It creates a structure for nations to pledge every five years to abate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to adapt to climate change, and to cooperate to these ends, including financial and other support. A single framework to promote transparency and track progress of Parties’ efforts applies, for the first time, to all Parties—whether rich or poor. The Parties also adopted a Decision to

give effect to the Paris Agreement. Both the Decision and the Agreement (hereinafter capitalized) are intended to be legally binding on Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the new Agreement, respectively, though not all provisions within them are mandatory. Both are subsidiary to the UNFCCC, which the United States ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate (Treaty Document 102-38, October 7, 1992).

The UNFCCC entered into force in 1994.

Whether the new Paris Agreement or Decision would require Senate advice and consent depends on the content of the agreements. If either were to contain new legal obligations on the United States, it would favor requiring Senate consent to ratification. However, the United States and other Parties to the UNFCCC accepted many legally binding obligations when they ratified the Convention, including control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, preparation to adapt to climate change, international cooperation and support, and regular reporting of emissions and actions with international review. Some have argued that the Paris Agreement does not require more of the United States than it is already obligated to do under the UNFCCC, while others have argued that it does.

Purpose and Post-2050 Balance of Emissions and Removals

The agreement states that it aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.

This purpose is stated as enhancing the implementation of the UNFCCC, including its objective to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system. In order to achieve this “long-term temperature goal,” Parties aim to make their GHG emissions peak as soon as possible and then to reduce them rapidly “so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.” In other words, the Agreement envisions achieving net zero anthropogenic emissions. While this is arguably synonymous with the UNFCCC’s objective of stabilizing GHG atmospheric concentrations, the Agreement puts a timeframe on the objective for the first time. However, as a collective objective, the Agreement provides no means to hold an individual Party accountable if the objective were not met.

Mitigation and Adaptation

The Agreement and Decision establish a single framework under which all Parties would:

communicate every five years and undertake “ambitious” Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to mitigating GHG emissions, participate in a single “transparency framework” that includes communicating their GHG inventories and implementation of their obligations, including financial support provided or received, not less than biennially (with exceptions to a few, least developed states), and be subject to international review of their implementation.

All Parties will eventually be subject to common procedures and guidelines. However, while developed country Parties (not defined) must provide NDCs stated as economy-wide, absolute GHG reduction targets, developing country Parties are exhorted to enhance their NDCs and move toward similar targets over time, in light of their national circumstances.

Further, flexibility in the transparency framework is allowed to developing countries, depending on their capacities, regarding the scope, frequency, and detail of their reporting. The administrative Secretariat of the Convention will record the NDCs and other key reports in a public registry.

The Agreement also requires “as appropriate” that Parties prepare and communicate their plans to adapt to climate change. Adaptation communications, too, will be recorded in a public registry.

A committee will, in a facilitative and non-punitive manner, address compliance issues under the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement contains provisions for voluntary withdrawal of Parties.

The Agreement permits Parties voluntarily to participate in cooperative approaches (implicitly, emissions markets) that “involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.”

Finance

The Agreement reiterates the obligation in the UNFCCC to provide financial support to developing country Parties to implement their mitigation efforts, calling for it to be continuous and enhanced. It uses exhortatory language to restate the collective pledge in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, of $100 billion annually by 2020, and calls for a “progression beyond previous efforts.” For the first time under the UNFCCC, the Agreement encourages all Parties to provide financial support. In addition, in the Decision, the Parties agreed to set, prior to their 2025 meeting, a new, collective, quantified goal for mobilizing financial resources of not less than $100 billion annually to assist developing country Parties. The Decision strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their current financial support—in particular to significantly increase their support for adaptation. The Agreement recognizes that “enhanced support” will allow for “higher ambition” in the actions of developing country Parties.

Five-Year Assessments

In 2023 and every five years thereafter, the Parties are to perform a “global stocktake” to review implementation of the Paris Agreement and progress toward the purpose of the Agreement and the long-term net zero anthropogenic emissions goal.

IRS: Tracking Cell Phones, Billions in Fraud Refunds

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

IRS Can Track Your Cell Phone, but Leaves Billions in Taxes Uncollected

DailySignal: While the Internal Revenue Service continues to leave uncollected tax money on the table, the agency beefed up its surveillance capabilities in a move that alarms both conservative and liberal privacy advocates.

Now some complain the IRS is acting too much like Big Brother and not enough like a traditional taxman.

Since 2006, the IRS has overseen an annual tax gap—the shortfall between taxes owed and collected—of about $385 billion, government analysts say. And according to an April report, the agency has not implemented 70 of 112 actions identified by the Government Accountability Office to close that loop.

In 2009, though, the IRS purchased a “cell-site simulator,” more commonly known as Stingray technology. And since November, the agency has been trying to buy another of the devices.

Related: House moves to Impeach IRS Comish, Speaker Ryan, not so fast

Related: IRS pays billions to illegals, fraud refunds

Like something from a spy movie, a Stingray device mimics a cellphone tower, tricking all mobile phones in an area into revealing their location and numbers. Authorities can deploy the powerful technology to tag and track an individual’s location in real time.

More advanced versions of the devices can be used to copy information stored on a cellphone and to download malware remotely.

The devices are as controversial as they are prevalent. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 61 agencies in 23 states and the District of Columbia own the devices.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen says the IRS uses its Stingray to hunt down fraudsters and stop money laundering. The agency’s use of the devices remained a secret until an October report in the Guardian.

In a November letter to House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, Koskinen wrote that the agency’s technology “cannot be used to intercept the content of real-time communications” such as voicemails, text messages, and emails. Instead, the IRS chief said, the device has been used “to track 37 phone numbers.”

And the IRS commissioner insists his agency deploys the tech only in accordance with state and federal laws.

But during an April 13 hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the deputy IRS commissioner for service and enforcement, John Dalrymple, couldn’t say whether the IRS obtained a warrant before activating the device.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, says he finds that concerning.

With a federal budget deficit projected at $544 billion in 2016, Jordan told The Daily Signal he’d rather have the IRS focus on “their fundamental job, which is to collect revenue due to the federal Treasury.” He added:

The GAO has 112 things they suggest, recommendations for the IRS to actually deal with the $385 billion dollar tax gap. Not one of those recommendations was to purchase a second Stingray unit.

More than a misappropriation of resources, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus said, he fears the IRS could abuse the technology to monitor political groups like it did in 2013, when the agency began targeting conservative nonprofits.

“Now you have this same agency, who again for a long period of time went after people for exercising their First Amendment free speech rights, are using this technology and without a Fourth Amendment probable cause warrant,” Jordan said.

Nathan Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the technology poses a significant threat even when gathering basic information like names and numbers. In an interview with The Daily Signal, Wessler said Stingray devices could be “quite chilling on people’s right to protest.”

And there’s already a precedent for misconduct, albeit at a more local level.

Wessler points to a 2003 incident when the Miami-Dade Police Department purchased a Stingray device to monitor a protest of a conference on the Free Trade Area of the Americas. According to an expense report obtained by the ACLU, police wanted the device because they “anticipated criminal activities.”

“It’s a pretty short step from those words to being concerned about the police intentionally downloading a list of every protester who shows up at some demonstration,” Wessler said. “It’s a powerful way to know who’s there.”

The IRS Criminal Investigations Division is already one of the more elite investigative agencies. Koskinen boasts that in 2015 the division achieved a 93.2 percent conviction rate, “the highest in all of federal law enforcement.”

It’s an open question whether the agency needs Stingray technology to complete its mission.

The IRS did not respond to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment made by emails and phone calls.

Paul Larkin argues that the nature of IRS investigations makes real-time intelligence irrelevant. Larkin, senior legal research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that IRS agents are following a paper trail to investigate previous crimes:

There is no good reason the IRS would ever need real-time data information. The crimes that the IRS investigates all occurred in the past. They’re investigating fraud against the government that’s already happened. They don’t have crimes in progress like a burglary.

But if the IRS ever needed to track a suspect in the moment, Larkin said, there’s a practical solution—teamwork. He explains that there’s “no legal hurdle” that prohibits the IRS from teaming up, for instance, with the Department of Justice and borrowing its Stingray technology.

Jordan says he isn’t ready to accept that the IRS ever needs access to the device.

“Really, should the IRS have this and be using this at all?” the Ohio Republican said. “I tend to think you’d be better off with this technology not being in their hands.”

******

The 23-page report is actually quite readable, and worth looking at if you’ve been a victim of identity theft or refund fraud, you’re a tax preparer, or you’re interested in the future of how Americans file our taxes.

The IRS paid out $3.1 billion in refunds to scammers last year. We’ve discussed in the past how this scam works: someone with basic information about a U.S. taxpayer files a return with fake information, depositing their refund in the scammer’s own account. It’s a sophisticated operation and very lucrative. Additional 5 items are here, a must read from the Consumerist.

Cyber: New Strategic Operation v. ISIS

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

The US Cyber Command started the attacks on the Islamic State

The US Government has announced to have launched a series of cyber attacks against the Islamic State coordinated by the Cyber Command.

SecurityAffairs: The US Government has launched its cyber offensive against the coordinated by the Cyber Command. The strategy is clear, the use of hacking operations and cyber weapons will aim to destroy computer systems used by the ISIL and to track its cyber hubs.

In March, Senior Pentagon officials revealed the military’s first use of cyber warfare operations against the ISIL terrorist group.

The US military has started launching cyber attacks against members of the terrorist organization ISIS as part of the operation conducted to take back the Iraqi city of Mosul.

The US military is using cyber tools to contrast the ISIS troops in the area, interfering members’ operation and communication.

Now the US Government wants to use all the hacking tools in its cyber arsenal against the Islamic State. The New Your Times revealed that until now the Cyber Command operations were more focused on cyber disputes against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

“The National Security Agency, which specializes in electronic surveillance, has for years listened intensely to the militants of the Islamic State, and those reports are often part of the president’s daily intelligence briefing.” states the NYT. “But the N.S.A.’s military counterpart, Cyber Command, was focused largely on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — where cyberattacks on the United States most frequently originate — and had run virtually no operations against what has become the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world.”

The goal of the new campaign is to disrupt the propaganda activities managed by the Islamic State, but also interfere with IS daily functions, like paying its fighters.

“Our cyberoperations are disrupting their command-and-control and communications,” Mr. Obama saidat the C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., on countering the Islamic State.

The deputy secretary of defense, Robert O. Work, confirmed the goals of the cyber operations that were conducted by a small number of “national mission teams.”

“We are dropping cyberbombs,” Mr. Work said. “We have never done that before.”

The NYT, citing interviews withs senior and midlevel officials, confirmed that the US cyber army has begun to deploy a series of “implants” in the networks of the Islamic State to spy on its commanders.

“Now, the plan is to imitate them or to alter their messages, with the aim of redirecting militants to areas more vulnerable to attack by American drones or local ground forces.” continues the NYT. “In other cases, officials said, the United States may complement operations to bomb warehouses full of cash by using cyberattacks to interrupt electronic transfers and misdirect payments.”

The fact that the US Government is admitting the use of cyber weapons that would have unpredictable effects over vast areas of the planet raising major questions over an invasion of sovereignty.

Of course, now we are speaking to contrast the Islamic State and everything seems to be admitted to destroying the threat.

“We’re trying to both physically and virtually isolate ISIL, limit their ability to conduct command and control, limit their ability to communicate with each other, limit their ability to conduct operations locally and tactically,” said Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

“But I’ll be one of the first ones arguing that that’s about all we should talk about,” General Dunford said. “We want them to be surprised when we conduct cyberoperations. And, frankly, they’re going to experience some friction that’s associated with us and some friction that’s just associated with the normal course of events in dealing in the information age.”

Of course, part of the intelligence consider very dangerous the use of the implants against the Islamic State. The same implants are used to infiltrate the networks of foreign government and there is the concrete risk that these operations allow foreign intelligence agencies to detect them and neutralize their effects. Another side effect is that the Islamic State militants would stop the use of a communications channel starting one that was harder to monitor.

“N.S.A. officials complained that once the implants were used to attack, the Islamic State militants would stop the use of a communications channel and perhaps start one that was harder to find, penetrate or de-encrypt.” states the NYT.

“It’s a delicate balance,” said Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice. “We still have to keep our eye on the Russia-China state-sponsored activity, but this was a new mission, one where we have to balance the collection equities against the disruption equities.”

Lisa O. Monaco, a deputy national security adviser and Mr. Obama’s top adviser met technology executives at IT giants calling for action against the online activities of the Islamic State.

****

In part from the DailyBeast: The American military’s campaign of cyber attacks against ISIS is far more serious than what the president laid out in his bland description. Three U.S. officials told The Daily Beast that those operations have moved beyond mere disruption and are entering a new, more aggressive phase that is targeted at individuals and is gleaning intelligence that could help capture and kill more ISIS fighters.

As the U.S. ratchets up its online offensive against the terror group, U.S. military hackers are now breaking into the computers of individual ISIS fighters. Once inside the machines, these hackers are implanting viruses and malicious software that allow them to mine their devices for intelligence, such as names of members and their contacts, as well as insights into the group’s plans, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive operations.

In remarks at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, this week, Obama confirmed that cyber operations were underway and noted that recently the U.S. has either captured or killed several key ISIS figures, including Sulayman Dawud al-Bakkar, a leader of its chemical weapons program, and “Haji Iman,” the man purported to be ISIS’s second in command.

The military has also used cyber operations to block ISIS’s use of encrypted communications, in order to force members to use less secure channels where they can be more easily monitored, officials said. That tactic appears to be a response to ISIS’s effective use of encrypted text applications in particular, which officials had said previously made it harder for the military and intelligence community to track individual fighters.

Iran Forces Them to Fight for Assad

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

Fatimiyoun Brigade

A comprehensive summary is here.

The Islamic Republic of Iran now controls part–though not all–of Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, while Turkey is another contender.

***

The creation of an Afghan Shia division in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards structure is not new, and dates back to the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s when an Afghan Shia force, the Abouzar Brigade, was formed to help fight Iraq.

So….while the White House, the National Security Council and the State Department want Assad removed from power and while the Obama regime is pro-Iran, how do they square this conundrum exactly? It should also be mentioned that those ‘Syrian’ refugees flooding into Europe are hardly all Syrian, in fact few are.

In part from BBC: Fatemioun Brigade, an all-Afghan unit commanded by Revolutionary Guards officers.

“The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps decided that the Syrian military could not succeed on their own,” he told the BBC. “The frontlines were too depleted and men were trying to avoid conscription.”

The Iranians decided to set up a 50,000-strong National Defence Force to fight alongside the Syrian army.

With a shortage of willing fighters inside Syria, they began looking elsewhere – signing up Iranian Afghans, Lebanese, Iraqi and Pakistani Shia recruits.

As the five-year conflict in Syria grinds on, BBC Persian has found evidence that Iran is sending thousands of Afghan men to fight alongside Syrian government forces.

The men, who are mainly ethnic Hazaras, are recruited from impoverished and vulnerable migrant communities in Iran, and sent to join a multi-national Shia Muslim militia – in effect a “Foreign Legion” – that Iran has mobilised to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Many have since fled the battlefield and joined the refugee trail to Europe.

In a small town in Germany, we meet “Amir”, an Afghan man in his early twenties.

He was born to refugee parents in Isfahan, Iran, and is now himself an asylum seeker in Europe.

Like most of the almost three million Afghans in Iran, he lived as a second-class citizen.

Without legal residency or identity documents, he found it hard to get an education or a job. Fear of arrest and deportation was a daily reality.

Human Rights Watch recently estimated as many as 10,000 Afghans may have been recruited by the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran’s foreign ministry has denied any Afghans are being sent in an official capacity. The official narrative from Tehran is that they are all volunteers, off to defend holy sites of their own volition.

But every week in Iran there are more military-style funerals for fallen Fatemioun fighters.

And with a major government spring offensive around Aleppo in the offing, it seems Iran’s Foreign Legion will be fighting – and dying – for President Assad for some time to come. Full article here.

****

AJ: “Iran is recruiting fighters from Shia communities across the world to fight in Syria,” continued al-Abdah, who is based in Turkey.

“Iran considers itself the one and only reference point for all Shia people in the whole world. It organises them into political, social, and military organisations, both in their local communities and abroad.

“This is part of the main mission of the Iranian regime in terms of exporting the revolution. Iran recruits, motivates, organises, finances, and trains Shias from all over the world to help support Bashar al-Assad’s regime from collapsing.” More here.