A New Scheme for Syrian Refugees?

Posted on April 26, 2016April 26, 2016 by Denise Simon

Infographic: The screening process for refugee entry into the U.S.
Download graphic

Refugees Welcome graphic — **By the numbers: What you need to know about Syrian refugees in the U.S.**
Download graphic

“Alternative Safe Pathways” for Syrian Refugees – Resettlement in Disguise?

By Nayla Rush

CIS.org: With the Syrian crisis entering its sixth year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is thinking of “innovative approaches” to organize Syrian admissions, alongside the refugee resettlement program, to countries willing to welcome them. UNHCR’s target for resettlement is 480,000 places over the next three years; it is not sure how many additional admissions into the U.S. and elsewhere these new “alternative safe pathways” will ensure. Refugees who are not resettled could be “legally admitted” using various routes described below.

The legitimacy and transparency of these new “alternative pathways,” aimed at admitting increasing numbers of Syrian refugees into the United States without calling them “refugees,” remain to be seen. They might even amount to convenient admissions detours at a time when the U.S. refugee resettlement program is under tight scrutiny.

In a panel discussion on The Global Refugee Crisis: Moral Dimensions and Practical Solutions organized by the Brookings Institution earlier this year, Beth Ferris, Research Professor at Georgetown University and adviser to the United Nations Secretary General on humanitarian refugee policy, talked about the need to find different solutions to the ongoing humanitarian Syrian crisis. The refugee resettlement program was no longer sufficient to admit Syrian refugees she said; “alternative safe pathways” are needed:

Refugees and government officials are expecting this crisis to last 10 or 15 years. It’s time that we no longer work as business as usual … UNHCR next month [March 2016] is convening a meeting to look at what are being called “alternative safe pathways” for Syrian refugees. Maybe it’s hard for the U.S. to go from 2,000 to 200,000 refugees resettled in a year, but maybe there are ways we can ask our universities to offer scholarships to Syrian students. Maybe we can tweak some of our immigration policies to enable Syrian-Americans who have lived here to bring not only their kids and spouses but their uncles and their grandmothers. There may be ways that we could encourage Syrians to come to the U.S. without going through this laborious, time-consuming process of refugee resettlement.” (Emphasis added.)

The UNHCR conference Ferris was referring to took place in Geneva this March 30. It is one of a series of initiatives aimed at comprehensively addressing the Syrian crisis in 2016. The Geneva “High-level meeting on global responsibility sharing through pathways for admission of Syrian refugees” focused on the need for a substantial increase in resettlement numbers and for “innovative approaches” to admit Syrian refugees. It followed February’s London Conference on Syria, which stressed the financial aspect of this humanitarian crisis ($12 billion pledged in humanitarian aid) and precedes a September 2016 high-level plenary meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Worthy of note here, President Obama will host a global refugee summit this September 20 on the margins of this upcoming General Assembly meeting.

The focus of the Geneva meeting was to introduce “other forms of humanitarian admissions” since “[r]esettlement is not the only aim”, explained UNHCR’s spokesperson. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi appealed to the international community in his opening statement, calling for “alternative avenues” for the admission of Syrian refugees:

These pathways can take many forms: not only resettlement, but also more flexible mechanisms for family reunification, including extended family members, labour mobility schemes, student visa and scholarships, as well as visa for medical reasons. Resettlement needs vastly outstrip the places that have been made available so far… But humanitarian and student visa, job permits and family reunification would represent safe avenues of admission for many other refugees as well.

At the end of the meeting, Grandi highlighted several commitments made by a number of participants in his closing remarks. Promises were made to:

Increase the number of resettlement and humanitarian admission places.

Ease family reunification and increase possibilities for family reunion.

Give scholarships and student visas for Syrian refugees.

Remove administrative barriers and simplify processes to facilitate and expedite the admission of Syrian refugees.

Use resources provided by the private sector in order to create labor mobility schemes for Syrian refugees.

The Geneva meeting was attended by representatives of 92 countries, including the United States. Heather Higginbottom, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, reiterated in her remarks the U.S. commitment to refugees: “President Obama has made assisting displaced people a top priority for the U.S. government.” Last year alone the U.S. contributed more than $6 billion to humanitarian causes. So far this year, the United States has provided nearly $2.3 billion in humanitarian assistance worldwide. She also announced additional measures: “We are further increasing our support of Syrian refugees, and we will make additional contributions to the global displacement effort through September, and beyond”, while reminding the participants of President Obama’s role in hosting a high-level refugee summit this September.

The U.S. State Department released a Media Note following the Geneva meeting. It confirmed the goal of resettling at least 10,000 Syrians in FY 2016 and of 100,000 refugees from around the world by the end of FY 2017 – an increase of more that 40 percent since FY 2015. It also announced the following:

“The United States pledged an additional $10 million to UNHCR to strengthen its efforts to identify and refer vulnerable refugees, including Syrians, for resettlement.”

“The United States joins UNHCR in calling for new ways nations, civil society, the private sector, and individuals can together address the global refugee challenge.”

“Additionally, the United States has created a program to allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to file refugee applications for their Syrian family member.” [Emphasis added.]

On this last note, why create a family reunification program for Syrian refugees when refugees in the U.S. are already entitled to ask for their spouse and unmarried children under 21 to join them? Unless of course, the aim is to widen family circles to include aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, grandmothers and grandfathers.

Let’s see if we got this right: More Syrian refugees are to be resettled in the United States; administrative barriers (including security checks?) are to be removed to expedite admissions. Come to think of it, this is exactly what we witnessed with the “Surge Operation” in Jordan, where refugee resettlement processes were reduced from 18-24 months to three months in order to meet the target of 10,000 Syrian refugees this year.

Moreover, the United States government, by its own admission, “joins UNHCR in calling for new ways” to move more Syrians to other countries. With the U.S. Refugee Resettlement program under close scrutiny, other routes for “legal admissions” (not “resettlement”) of Syrian refugees into the United States seem more appropriate. Those routes may vary from private sponsorships, labor schemes, expanded family reunification programs, humanitarian visas, medical evacuation, to academic scholarships and apprenticeships, etc.

What remains to be determined is how transparent these “alternative pathways” will be. Will we be given details about numbers, profiles, locations, screening, or costs? Also, what additional measures are we to expect from this administration as it prepares to host a Global Refugee Summit this September 20?

Meanwhile, we are left to wonder: aren’t these “pathways” for refugees nothing more than disguised resettlement routes? Akin to “pathways to citizenship” in lieu of amnesty…

Documents Show Assad’s Oil Deals with ISIS

Posted on April 26, 2016April 26, 2016 by Denise Simon

ISIS’s Multimillion-Dollar Oil Deals With Assad Regime Uncovered in U.S. Special Forces Raid

Newsweek: The Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad has negotiated multimillion-dollar oil deals with the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), new documents retrieved from a U.S. raid against the radical Islamists’ oil chief have revealed.

A U.S. special forces raid on ISIS’s oil minister—known by his nom de guerre Abu Sayyaf—in May 2015 saw the extraction of thousands of documents implicating his oil operation with that of the Assad regime, with revenue from the sale of oil to Damascus helping the group to reach a peak of $40 million a month in oil revenue, according to documents seen by The Wall Street Journal.

Sayyaf led the group’s oil ministry, known as the Diwan of Natural Resources, and used deals with the Syrian regime to boost the division’s income, contributing 72 percent of $289.5 million the group earned in natural-resource revenues in the six months preceding February 2015.

A document identified as Memo No. 156, dated February 11, 2015, from the trove of documents extracted from Sayyaf’s Deir Ezzor hideout shows that the Tunisian national requested assistance from an unknown party on how to build investment links with businessmen allied to the Assad regime.

The document states that ISIS already had agreements in place with Damascus that permitted trucks to move from oil fields under the authority of the regime to travel through ISIS-controlled territory. Two former ISIS oil managers also told the The Wall Street Journal that the group had made deals with businessman connected to the Syrian regime.

In the raid, U.S. special forces traveled from Iraq to eastern Syria, where they killed ISIS militants guarding his compound before assassinating Sayyaf. The forces took his wife Umm Sayyaf into custody and transferred her to the hands of Kurdish control.

In their sweep across eastern Syria in late 2013 and early 2014, ISIS seized some of Syria’s key oil fields in the Deir Ezzor province, such as al-Tanak and al-Omar. The group lost its first major oil field in Syria, al-Jasbah, where it was producing 3,000 barrels of oil a day, to Syrian-Kurdish forces in January. The U.S.-led coalition is also targeting the group’s oil fields, significantly reducing its ability to refine lucrative oil and sell it to shadowy buyers.

*****

In 2014: Officials from the Iraqi oil industry have said that ISIS reaps $1 million per day in Iraq in oil profits and that if they get the Syrian fields in [areas where they’re advancing], the total would be $100 million per month for both Iraq and Syria combined. They sell it for $30 a barrel because it’s a black market. It’s not pegged to international standards for oil prices, which are over $100 a barrel. The oil is bought through Turkey from Syria, and it’s sold to black market traders who function throughout the Levant.

ISIS’s strategy seems to have evolved around generating income. ISIS raises money in several ways, but oil is certainly a part of that. For a long time, they avoided having much direct confrontation with the regime. They generally tended to turn their fire against other rebel groups. They had been selling to the regime, or basically anyone who’d pay for it. But recently it seems like they are taking a more aggressive approach, like with the attack on Shaar. Were they just attacking it to destroy it [to hit the regime], or to take it over and continue selling gas? It’s not clear what their intention was.

If ISIS truly has destroyed fields there, it means the [regime’s] gas supply will be cut off. It’s already down to half of pre-war levels, and this will cause more power cuts and electricity cuts in Damascus. It means the regime will have to use more expensive fuel from Iran. It means more suffering for [civilians], and this perhaps will undercut support there for the regime. And it makes it very hard to have any prospect of the economy recovering.

ISIS, which has an illegal oil export scheme that derives revenue. It seems now that [oil in Syria] is up for grabs and ISIS started this trend [of fighting for it]. It is likely that other groups such as Nusra will try to follow.

As the Islamic State is established, it’s clear that ISIS wants to have all parts of their government and revenue sources well organized, and that energy exports are part of this scheme. The scheme includes the collection of taxes, but also other black market activities like trade in other illegal goods the group plunders from the land it captures. Given the call by [ISIS leader Abu Bakr] Baghdadi on the first day of Ramadan –asking for consolidation of the state and the recruitment of individuals to help run that state – you have to figure that the energy sector figures into his planning. Read full interview in context here.

9/11: 28 Pages, Detainee Facts

Posted on April 26, 2016April 26, 2016 by Denise Simon

Ghassan al Sharbi also used a pro-bono progressive law firm to file a petition and lawsuit against President GW Bush.

He lived and received financial assistance during his time at the Islamic Society Tempe, Arizona. See the file/docket here. It should also be written, the Garland, Texas terror plot also included an Arizona footprint. (CAIR, Islamic Society of North America are implicated in the Holyland Foundation case, charities that raised funds for terror operations)

Noted as prisoner #237, and on November 7, 2005, the United States charged al-Sharbi and four other detainees with war crimes. They were expected to face a trial before a military commission. Al-Sharbi, Jabran Said bin al Qahtani, Binyam Ahmed Muhammad, and Sufyian Barhoumi faced conspiracy to murder charges for being part of an al-Qaeda bomb-making cell.^[5] Omar Khadr, 18 years old, faced both murder and conspiracy to murder charges.

Al-Sharbi initially wanted to decline legal representation; a pro bono attorney was arranged by the Center for Constitutional Rights and other organizations when the US had not provided any counsel to the detainees.^[6] In 2006, his pro bono attorney, Bob Rachlin, was trying to arrange for al-Sharbi to talk by phone with his parents, hoping they would persuade him to accept Rachlin’s legal assistance, which his father had initiated. He also left his wife and daughter in the United States when he fled to Pakistan. More here in further detail.

*****

Terror suspect whose flight certificate was linked to Saudis one of Gitmo’s most dangerous

FNC: One of Guantanamo Bay’s most dangerous and longest-held terror suspects is a Saudi national who knows how to fly planes and build sophisticated bombs, speaks fluent English and remains committed to killing Americans, say former U.S. officials who dealt with Ghassan al Sharbi face-to-face.

Revelations last week that Al Sharbi’s flight training certificate, tucked into a Saudi Arabian Embassy envelope, had been found in 2003 among a trove of documents buried in Pakistan following his arrest there, raised fresh questions about the Kingdom’s possible involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Although Al Sharbi, who trained with several of the 9/11 hijackers at an Arizona flight school, did not take part in the attacks, he is seen as one of the most lethal and committed terrorists held at the military base.

“In my view, Ghassan al Sharbi was one of the most dangerous men held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Jay Hood, who oversaw the detention facility. “I knew him well and my assessment is informed by a number of direct interactions I had with him between 2004 and 2006. He is extremely intelligent, well educated, and committed to a violent Islamic ideology.”

“In my view, Ghassan al Sharbi was one of the most dangerous men held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay.”

– Army Maj. Gen. Jay Hood

Al Sharbi’s record, training, testimony and connections to the Al Qaeda terror network that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have largely been kept secret, but some details were quietly released last year in a top-secret report called “Document 17” that was declassified by the FBI. The report alluded to the discovery of his flight certificate inside an envelope from the Saudi Embassy in Washington, buried outside a Pakistani safehouse where he was captured by local forces on March 28, 2002. Information about the certificate was released in a 47-page work plan prepared for the FBI in June 2003 but not declassified until last July.

Born in Saudi Arabia, the 41-year-old terrorist is particularly dangerous, military officials and government documents said, because he speaks fluent English, has a degree in electrical engineering from an American university, took flying lessons with the 9/11 terrorists who crashed a plane into the Pentagon and is a proficient bomb maker.

No photo is available of Al Sharbi, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay since June 19, 2002.

The Guantánamo Review Task Force suggested in 2010 that Al Sharbi be prosecuted for war crimes, but that hasn’t yet occurred in the nearly 14 years he’s been held by U.S. forces.

“I suspect he is still being held because he is being considered by the Military Commissions for prosecution,” Hood said. “But I also suspect that those in the Intelligence community realize the potential threat he would pose as an operational planner and leader to any violent Islamic group. He is extraordinarily committed to his religion, and to using violence to combat capitalism in the Western world.”

The Obama administration has released dozens of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, which once held more than 600 terror suspects but now holds around 80. Al Sharbi ranks with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad as one of the facility’s longest-held and most dangerous residents, according to Brian McGlinchey, director of 28Pages.org, a website that supports the movement to declassify documents believed to link top Saudi officials to the 9/11 hijackers.

“He’s been deemed a high-risk individual who allegedly attended a training camp in Afghanistan and is a self-proclaimed bomb-maker,” said McGlinchey, a former Army officer whose website was the first to report on Al Sharbi’s flight certificate being found. “Other detainees told interrogators Al Sharbi had been seen talking to Usama bin Laden, was very proficient with weapons and had been selected for specialized remote control detonation training.”

Al Sharbi was captured in Pakistan in 2002 along with Abu Zubaida, whom the U.S. government at one time believed was a top Al Qaeda lieutenant but later concluded was not.

Al Sharbi has never hidden his terrorist intentions.

“I am your enemy, I will fight the United States. Period,” he told a military judge, according to Paul Rester, who headed military intelligence, interrogation and analysis at Guantanamo on and off from 2002 until 2010.

“He was very forthcoming and very determined,” said Rester. “He was not in the planner-organizer echelon, he was in the executor-operator echelon. He made bombs, had direct ties to Bin Laden, and had sway over others because of that tie. He was extremely important to his terrorist network because he was well-trained and could make things work.”

The buried documents, which were recovered by the FBI, included manuals on bomb-making and other explosive devices, and are included among thousands of items confiscated from suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo that filled a 2,000-square-foot room.

Born in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 1974, Al Sharbi lived in Arizona from 1998 to 2000 while studying electrical engineering at Mesa Community College and then at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz., in the months preceding 9/11. One of the founding members and president of the Islamic Student Society at Embry Riddle, he abruptly left the school in August 2001, and traveled to Pakistan with stops in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and the United Arab Emirates.

Known in Al Qaeda circles as the “electronic builder,” government reports say he was trained and taught others to produce circuit boards for use in remote-controlled car bombs, IEDS and other detonation devices that would be used to kill American soldiers and to help build remote-control devices that could be placed in the United States and detonated by a mobile phone from Pakistan.

In 1999, Al Sharbi and another suspected Al Qaeda operative were involved in an incident that caused a Washington-bound flight to be diverted and was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report. The other man, who was flying with Al Shari, tried to enter the cockpit, which the commission concluded may have been an intelligence gathering operation to test in-flight security measures in preparation for the attacks that would come two years later.

Since he first entered Guantanamo, Al Sharbi’s behavior has been “generally non-compliant, often showing signs of aggression,” according to a report Hood completed while head of the facility. The 2004 report detailed an incident in which Al Sharbi assaulted a guard and numerous cases in which he led fellow detainees in creating disturbances.

“It has been determined that the detainee poses a high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies,” Hood wrote.

In his own testimony before a military tribunal in 2006, Al Sharbi, who goes by several alias including Abdullah al Muslim, Abu Muslim, Ghassan Abdallah Ghazi al Shirbi and Abdullah al Sharbi, said he must “defend the Islamic nation.”

“I came here to tell you I did what I did and I’m willing to pay the price,” he said, according to a Reuters pool reporter. “Even if I spend hundreds of years in jail, that would be a matter of honor to me.

“I fought the United States; I’m going to make it short and easy for you guys: I’m proud of what I did.”

The Obama administration has pledged to close Guantanamo Bay’s detention camp and release, return to their country of origin or place the remaining detainees in facilities on U.S. soil. His proposal continues to garner opposition from military leaders and Republicans, who say releasing some of America’s most dangerous enemies will lead to more American lives lost.

State Dept Briefing, No Boots, 250 Boots, But But But

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

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016 — Up to 250 additional U.S. personnel are being deployed to Syria to support local forces on the ground and build on successes of U.S. forces already deployed there in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the Pentagon’s press secretary said today.

The additional personnel include special operations forces and medical and logistics personnel, Peter Cook told reporters at the Pentagon. The forces are to build on the gains of 50 previously deployed special operators in Syria, he said.

During a speech in Germany today, President Barack Obama announced the deployment of the additional forces. He said the expertise of the special operations forces already on the ground in Syria has been critical as local forces drive ISIL out of key areas.

Okay, so you now there is a major divide in the message, hence words matter, check out this exchange today between the media and the State Department spokesperson, John Kirby. Advance the video to the 25:00 minute mark and it ends about the 28:00 minute mark.

In 2015, when Obama deployed 50 special forces to Syria, the War Powers Act and authority began yet another huge debate in Congress.

Let us go back to 2015 shall we?

16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria

WASHINGTON — Since 2013, President Obama has repeatedly vowed that there would be no “boots on the ground” in Syria.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the president’s decision Friday to send up to 50 special forces troops to Syria doesn’t change the fundamental strategy: “This is an important thing for the American people to understand. These forces do not have a combat mission.”

Earnest said the promises of “no boots on the ground” first came in the context of removing Syrian President Bashar Assad because of his use of chemical weapons. Since then, Syria has become a haven for Islamic State fighters.

Here’s a recap of Obama’s no-boots pledge:

Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

“In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach.”

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

“After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.”

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

“So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.”

News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

“I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we’re talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that’s a sober decision.”

News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

“The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we’ll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility.”

Heck read the rest from USAToday.

In 2013, the White House sent a letter to the Congress on his power with regard to Syria, but it did not mention boots on the ground but rather strikes, meaning by manned and or unmanned aircraft.

Letter from the President — War Powers Resolution Regarding Syria

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

September 23, 2014

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

As I have repeatedly reported to the Congress, U.S. Armed Forces continue to conduct operations in a variety of locations against al-Qa’ida and associated forces. In furtherance of these U.S. counterterrorism efforts, on September 22, 2014, at my direction, U.S. military forces began a series of strikes in Syria against elements of al-Qa’ida known as the Khorasan Group. These strikes are necessary to defend the United States and our partners and allies against the threat posed by these elements.

I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional and statutory authority as Commander in Chief (including the authority to carry out Public Law 107-40) and as Chief Executive, as well as my constitutional and statutory authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

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.