EU New Industry: Billions in Immigrant Smuggling

Posted on May 4, 2016May 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

EUROPOL: ‘The fasted growing criminal market in Europe’ netted $6.6 billion in 2015

BusinessInsider: People-smuggling gangs netted up to 6 billion euros ($6.6 billion) last year, most of it from the traffic of migrants into Europe, the European Union’s police agency Europol said in a report issued on Monday.

Labeling people-smuggling as the “fastest growing criminal market in Europe”, the report said: “This turnover (of 6 billion euros) is set to double or triple if the scale of the current migration crisis persists in the upcoming year.”

Europol and police forces in countries in Europe and beyond have identified more than 12,000 suspects active in gangs involved in smuggling in migrants since 2015.

Gangs, whose members come from countries including Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq and Kosovo, are engaged in a huge range of criminal activities including document forgery and official bribery, the report said.

So-called “hotspots” where gang activities is concentrated include cities along the Balkan route from the Middle East, such as Istanbul, Izmir, Athens and Budapest, as well as major continental hubs like Berlin, Calais, Zeebrugge and Frankfurt.

But Europol said there was little evidence that “terrorist suspects” were making use of migrant smuggling networks to enter the continent on a significant scale.

“Far less than 0.01 percent of terrorist suspects have had migrant links,” said Europol director Rob Wainwright at a news conference.

About one million migrants reached Europe last year, most of them fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East, the agency said in a report issued as it set up a new center to coordinate the Europe-wide fight against the smugglers.

The European Migrant Smuggling Centre, which will be based at Europol’s headquarters in The Hague, will help police forces in and outside Europe share intelligence and will help with rapid deployment of emergency police forces as new migrant routes emerge.

Read the full report here. migrant_smuggling__europol_report_2016

Irregular migrants travelling to the EU primarily originate from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq as well as from Senegal, Somalia, Niger, Morocco and other African countries. In addition to these nationalities, there is also a continuous flow of irregular migrants from Asian countries such as India, Bangladesh, China, and Vietnam, albeit to a lesser extent.

Within the EU, the preferred destination countries of these migrants are Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

A migrant’s journey takes them from their country of origin through a number of transit countries to their eventual country of destination. Migrant smugglers and other criminals offer a wide variety of often highly priced services throughout this journey. These facilitation services include the provision of transportation, accommodation and fraudulent documents. In many cases, irregular migrants are forced to pay for these services by means of illegal labour.

Smuggling hotspots are located along the main migration routes and attract migrant smuggling networks. These hotspots may be favourably located along routes where most migrants travel or may feature easy access to transport infrastructures used for illegal facilitation activities.

In and outside the EU, more than 230 locations where illegal facilitation or migrant smuggling take place have been identified. The main criminal hotspots for migrant smuggling outside the EU are Amman, Algiers, Beirut, Benghazi, Cairo, Casablanca, Istanbul, Izmir, Misrata, Oran, and Tripoli.

The main criminal hotspots for intra-EU movements include Athens, Berlin, Budapest, Calais, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hoek van Holland, London, Madrid, Milan, Munich, Paris, Passau, Rome, Stockholm, Tornio, Thessaloniki, Vienna, Warsaw, and Zeebrugge.

The hotspots channel migratory flows, act as pull factors and have grown exponentially in the last years. Migrants gather in hotspots where they know they will have access to services during their travel to their preferred destination.

During their journeys, migrants often stop over in urban or semi-urban areas to work illegally in order to pay their debts to the migrant smugglers or to save money for the next leg of their journey.

UK: PM Cameron and the Queen’s Plan on Militant Islam

Posted on May 3, 2016May 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

Well, it appears the United Kingdom is about to launch a program and the Queen is announcing the plan. But the details are troublesome, in fact watered down dramatically, but could it be a start?

New anti-extremism powers to be included in Queen’s speech

Legislation expected to include measures to ban groups, close down premises and gag individuals

Guardian: David Cameron is expected to announce plans to crack down on extremism in the Queen’s speech, including powers to ban organisations, close down premises and gag individuals.

The legislation follows publication of the government’s counter-extremism strategy which also promised a full investigation into the application of sharia law in the UK.

The review has already been announced, but the Home Office is expected to appoint a chair shortly.

A Downing Street spokesman said he would not speculate on the contents of the Queen’s speech, to be held at the state opening of parliament on 18 May, but sources said that legislation was required to introduce the measures announced in October as part of the strategy.

It promised to ban radical preachers from posting material online, and bar anyone with extremist views from working with children. It also said that deradicalisation classes should be mandatory.

There are also plans to allow Ofcom to block broadcasts of “unacceptable extremist material”.

However, there appear to be questions still remaining. A Home Office source told the Times: “Getting agreement about the thresholds for what constitutes extremism and what needs to be protected as free speech is not going to be easy or straightforward.”

****** The HM Strategy document is here.

A sampling of the strategy:

Engaging internationally

This strategy focuses on extremism at home but recognises that the flow of people, ideology and money is increasingly international. We will develop a clear plan of international work to reinforce our efforts to defeat extremism at home. We will also campaign to build a more robust international response to counter extremist ideology and propaganda and continue to focus on strengthening international bodies and our partners. This will be a key priority for our network of diplomatic missions, working through international institutions such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Union and through government and civil society partners. In particular, this will include steps to:

counter extremist ideology: we will use our international network to better understand the nature and appeal of extremist ideology, learning from and sharing international best practice to improve the effectiveness of our response;

build partnerships with all those opposed to extremism: we will expand our partnerships with governments and multilateral groups overseas to reduce the threat to the UK via concerted international action including tackling extremism online; and

disrupt extremists: we will strengthen data sharing arrangements with our overseas posts to ensure that key decision makers – including visa officials – are fully informed about individuals’ links to extremist groups. This will involve particularly close collaboration with the Extremism Analysis Unit.

We will work with our international partners to support implementation of the United Nations Secretary General’s Action Plan on Preventing Violent Extremism which is intended to frame what all UN member states and agencies are expected to do to tackle violent extremism. This effort will include building the capacity of international institutions and our partners, to reduce the extremist threats to UK interests emanating from overseas and thereby reinforce delivery of this strategy.44. We will also ensure that our aid programmes address the underlying drivers, enablers and narratives of extremism, particularly through efforts to build stability and security overseas. We will use the joint Conflict, Stability and Security Fund to enable greater work across Government to address transnational threats such as extremism.45. Finally, we will support collective efforts across government to engage and positively influence British communities, explaining the UK’s foreign, security and development work, and raising awareness of the impact it has overseas.

***** The 250,000 EU migrants ‘that weren’t counted’: Explosive report says official figures are underestimating number by 50,000 a year meaning migration from inside Europe is now higher than the rest of the world combined

Its report said: ‘Between 2010 and 2015 the population born in the EU8 and living in the UK increased by an average of 90,000 a year but during the same period estimated net migration from the EU8 averaged only 40,000.

‘This suggests that EU8 net migration has been undercounted by 50,000 a year in the last five years.’

Trump: America First, Foreign Policy Presentation

Posted on April 27, 2016April 27, 2016 by Denise Simon

Good for Donald Trump, America should be first when it comes to policy and diplomacy. Applause to the Donald for that standard. Well said.

Tell us again how to pronounce Tanzania or San Bernardino.

What was not said however is disturbing for those who have a keen interest in foreign policy. Of particular note, the Ambassador of Russia was sitting on the front row. Perhaps this is but one reason, Trump never mentioned Russia or Vladimir Putin.

Remember it was only recently that Russia has been more than provocative in reckless actions against a U.S. destroyer and U.S. military aircraft. This is a violation of the IncSea Treaty. This is not the first time either, noting Russian bombers off the West Coast and the same with our European allies. What about the Baltic States, Crimea or Ukraine? Anything?

What about the constant war in the cyber realm? Trump did mention artificial intelligence, does he know what that is? What about electronic or economic warfare?

al Qaeda, Boko Harem, Haqqani, Jabhat al-Nusra, Houthis? Nah….the plight of Jews and Christians, Yazidis, Peshmerga? Standing with France on their recent attacks? Nothing about China’s aggression with the new islands and fighter jets there?

Well said Donald on the destruction of Islamic State, high marks for that. Additional high marks for the IRGC and kidnapping our sailors.

Trump made a mere simple reference to Iran and their nuclear program, stating they will never have a nuclear weapon and the Joint Plan of Action was a bad deal. How come no reference to Iran being a violator of conventions, a rogue state sponsor of terror? Nothing about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp or Hezbollah or IED’s made by Iran that killed and maimed our soldiers? What about Iran’s collusion with North Korea? Anything on that? No…

Does Trump approve of John Kerry’s work as the current Secretary of State? Humm, perhaps as Trump never mentioned Kerry.

Syria unleashed Islamic State? Really? Trump blames China for North Korea. Does Donald think that China is fully, exclusively responsible and accountable for Kim Jung Un?

Why no mention of foreign aid? There is likely a bailout coming for Puerto Rico. Does Trump have a clue on that? When it comes to NATO, Trump backed off and merely mentioned that only four member countries pay the 2% of GDP. Never a mention that countries do pay the United States for bases and protection like Philippines and Japan. Did Trump slight Israel by not stating nurturing and restoring the relationship or is he still in a neutral position when it comes to the Palestinians? Hamas? Anything on human rights violations? What about the corruption of the United Nations?

When referencing Cuba, Trump correctly stated that Obama was slighted at the airport with no Cuban official being on the formal reception. Is Trump cool with normalizing relations with Cuba considering the treatment of dissidents or U.S. criminals that have receive safe haven on the island or the debt Cuba owes to U.S. domestic corporations for nationalizing them? What about Guantanamo as a whole?

Forgotten is a war we are currently fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan…not a word at all by Trump.

Trump did layout his policy on foreign matters stating diplomacy, caution and restraint. That is always the standard. Did Trump mention he was going to revisit or retool those approaches? No….

Most disturbing, included in Trump’s foreign policy speech was the feeble condition of our own nuclear program and the military as a whole. Why explain any weakness at all where adversaries are listening with a keen ear? The U.S. military is still today the most advanced power on the globe while new technologies and weapons systems are in the future pipelines. Hey Donald, how about making a positive declaration about the military condition and the work of the Pentagon and the military collaboration with allies that does demonstrate strength?

Well, here is the text of his speech for your reference.

For additional reference, those included on Trump’s foreign policy team are:

Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan. He is under investigation. Trump only met Khalilzad earlier in the day. Further, the Ambassador stated that if Hillary had asked him to be part of her team, he would gladly do so.

Walid Phares, a Lebanese Christian and commentator on Middle East Affairs.

George Papadopoulos, energy consultant

Carter Page, energy consultant and lobbyist for Gazprom, a Russian energy company

Joe Schmitz, fired as former Inspector General, Department of Defense, formerly of Blackwater and his sister is Mary Kay Letourneau gained infamy after having a sexual relationship with her 12-year-old student, to whom she is now married.

LTG Keith Kellogg (ret), Chief Operating Officer of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Iraq

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…

Europe Tells Obama AGAIN to Mind your Own Business

Posted on April 21, 2016April 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

The vote is very….very close so far.

CNNMoney: U.K. citizens worldwide will vote in the historic referendum on June 23. Prime Minister David Cameron will campaign for the U.K. to stay in the EU. The British economy is the second largest in the EU. Its decision on whether to stay or go will have big implications not only for the people of the U.K. but also global financial markets and the future of Europe. More here.

‘Monstrous interference’: UK pols furious at Obama’s plan to intervene in EU debate

FNC: President Obama looks set to wade into the contentious debate in the United Kingdom over whether or not the nation should remain a member of the European Union – and some Brits are angry at the president’s intrusion into a delicate UK issue ahead of a major vote.

Obama will arrive in London late Thursday for a three-day trip. On Friday he will meet Prime Minister David Cameron — who is reportedly keen to get Obama’s backing ahead of the June 23 referendum, in which Britons will choose to remain or leave the European Union.

Cameron is in a difficult position, backing the “Remain” campaign, while many within his own Conservative Party are campaigning for the “Leave” or “Brexit” (British-Exit) campaign. Polls have shows the race is tight, with the Remain campaign holding an edge as small as one percent.

The White House has said Obama is willing to offer his opinion and may announce that he favors Cameron’s position – that Britain should remain in the European Union.

“If he’s asked his view as a friend, he will offer it,” U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said. “As the president has said, we support a strong United Kingdom in the European Union.”

Those calling for Britain to leave the European Union are not happy at that news, with U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage saying Obama should stay home.

‘A monstrous interference,” Farage told Fox News Thursday. “I’d rather he stayed in Washington, frankly, if that’s what he’s going to do.”

“You wouldn’t expect the British Prime Minister to intervene in your presidential election, you wouldn’t expect the Prime Minister to endorse one candidate or another. Perhaps he’s another one of those people who doesn’t understand what [the EU] is,” Farage said.

In March, a letter sent from Conservative MP and former cabinet minister Liam Fox, and co-signed by over 100 MPs from four different political parties, asked the U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. to persuade Obama not to intervene, calling any such intervention “extremely controversial and potentially damaging.”

“It has long been the established practice not to interfere in the domestic political affairs of our allies and we hope that this will continue to be the case,” the letter to Ambassador Matthew Barzun read.

“While the current U.S. administration may have a view on the desirability or otherwise of Britain’s continued membership of the E.U., any explicit intervention in the debate is likely to be extremely controversial and potentially damaging,” the letter said.

London Mayor Boris Johnson — who was born in New York and has expressed strong support for the UK-U.S. relationship — accused Obama of hypocrisy.

“I just think it’s paradoxical that the United States, which wouldn’t dream of allowing the slightest infringement of its own sovereignty, should be lecturing other countries about the need to enmesh themselves ever deeper in a federal superstate,” Johnson said Tuesday.

Cameron however, has said that the advice of allies was welcome, saying “listening to what our friends say in the world is not a bad idea.”

“I struggle to find the leader of any friendly country that thinks we should leave,” he said Wednesday.

***** For the explanation of the referendum and graphics by The Economist, go here.