Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

3 More Arrested Associated with San Bernardino Attack

Posted on by

FBI arrests brother of San Bernardino terrorist and 2 others on marriage fraud charges

LATimes: Federal agents arrested three people, including the older brother of San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook, on charges of marriage fraud and lying to federal investigators on Thursday morning, authorities said.

Syed Raheel Farook, his wife, Tatiana Farook, and her sister Mariya Chernykh are charged in a five-count indictment filed in federal court alleging that Chernykh entered into a fraudulent marriage with Enrique Marquez Jr., who has been accused of providing weapons used in the deadly Dec. 2 attack at the Inland Regional Center.

Two people were arrested at Farook’s home in Corona after the FBI conducted a search warrant Thursday, according to Sgt. Paul Mercado, a spokesman for the Corona Police Department. A second search warrant was served at Chernykh’s home in Ontario, federal prosecutors said.

In the course of the investigation into the terrorist attack, federal authorities said they determined Marquez received money to marry Chernykh, who took part in the wedding only to gain legal status in the U.S. FBI agents interrogated Chernykh as part of the inquiry into the terror attack, and prosecutors say she lied during those interviews by pretending that she lived with Marquez when she actually resided in Ontario.

All three are expected to appear in federal court in Riverside on Thursday afternoon, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

They were charged with conspiring to concoct the illusion of a marriage between Marquez and Chernykh and face up to five years in federal prison if convicted. Chernykh also was charged with fraud, misuse of visas and other documents, perjury and two counts of lying to federal investigators. Those additional charges together carry a maximum sentence of up to 25 years in federal prison, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

“This is the latest step in the comprehensive investigation into the horrific attacks in San Bernardino last year that took the lives of 14 innocent Americans and deeply affected so many more,” U.S. Atty. Eileen M. Decker said in a statement. “As I have said previously, we owe the victims, and the entire community of San Bernardino, a thorough investigation that uncovers all criminal activity surrounding these events.”

Attorneys representing the Farooks and Chernykh did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

While the investigation into the San Bernardino attacks has centered on a battle to gain access to Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone 5c in recent months,  two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation told The Times that no information from the phone was used in the investigation that led to Thursday’s arrests. Federal authorities were prepared to battle Apple over access to the phone in court, but were able to gain access with the help of a third party late last month.

A 12-page indictment that was handed up on Wednesday afternoon accuses Chernykh and Marquez of staging photographs of their relationship and later purchasing a wedding ring long after they were supposed to have been wed in order to sustain the illusion of marriage.

Chernykh made three separate $200 deposits in a bank account she shared with Marquez in late 2015, according to the indictment. Federal prosecutors previously alleged that Marquez was paid $200 per month to take part in the sham marriage with Chernykh.

The pair claimed they were married at a “religious institution” in Corona in November 2014, but Chernykh struggled to play the role of blissfully wedded wife early on, according to the indictment.

On Christmas Day 2014, Tatiana Farook told Chernykh to stop posting photos of the father of her child on social media, prosecutors say.

When the couple learned they were going to be interviewed by immigration officials in late 2015, panic set in, according to the indictment. Syed Raheel Farook created a fraudulent lease agreement that suggested Marquez and Chernykh had been living together since November 2014. The agreement said the couple lived with Farook and his wife at their Forum Way home in Corona, prosecutors say, but public records show Chernykh actually resided in Ontario.

In a November 2015 email exchange, Marquez and Chernykh discussed their mutual anxiety over their upcoming immigration interview because of the lack of contact with each other, according to the indictment.

Days later, Marquez posted on social media that he “was involved in terrorist plots and he might go to prison for fraud,” the indictment said.

On Dec. 1, the day before the terror attack, the two sisters traveled to a retail jewelry store in Riverside and purchased a $50 wedding ring for Marquez, according to the indictment.

Federal prosecutors say Tatiana Farook persisted with the lie 24 hours after the deadly attack. When interviewed by the FBI on Dec. 3, she insisted that Marquez and Chernykh had been living together at her Corona home, according to the indictment.

FBI agents have executed three search warrants at Syed Raheel Farook’s home since Dec. 2, when Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and wounded several more in a mass shooting at a conference room at the Inland Regional Center.

The two died hours later in a gun battle with police. Federal agents searched the older brother’s home, where several Farook family members live, in the days after the shooting.

They conducted a second search in February after the investigation pivoted to look for key evidence that might help the FBI track Farook and Malik’s movements after the attack. The hard drive of Farook’s laptop has eluded FBI agents and has become something of a holy grail in the investigation as the FBI tries to determine whether Farook and Malik had any help in planning or carrying out the attack.

The Corona neighborhood where Farook was arrested Thursday morning was mostly quiet in the hours after the FBI raids, save for a throng of reporters.

Many residents said they have grown frustrated at the constant attention they’ve received since the Dec. 2 attacks as the FBI has repeatedly searched Farook’s home.

Stacy Mozer, who has lived in Corona for 26 years, said he was surprised to hear that Farook had been arrested on charges related to marriage fraud.

In private conversations, he said, Farook expressed great regret about the shootings his brother and sister-in-law carried out.

“I was very surprised that’s why they got arrested,” he said. “When they said it was about the marriage thing, well, I was more concerned about the shooting.”

Mozer described Farook and his wife as a happy, friendly pair.

“They’re not hiding from anything,” he said.

 

Another neighbor, who declined to give his name, also said he was surprised that the FBI had arrested the pair on marriage fraud charges.

“The guy spent four years in the Navy. I don’t know what they want from him,” the neighbor said. “It’s his brother that’s the idiot.”

In the days after the shooting, friends and neighbors of the brothers said they were polar opposites. While his younger brother has been named as the architect of the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001, the elder Farook was a Navy veteran who received medals for service in the “Global War on Terrorism.”

 

The older brother was the extrovert of the two, friends say, loud and sociable compared to his brother.

While there has been no indication the older Farook brother had any advance knowledge of the attack on the Inland Regional Center, police were called to his Corona home days after the shooting because of a domestic disturbance. The Riverside County district attorney’s office later declined to file charges in that incident.

Tatiana Farook came to the U.S. on a short-term educational visa in 2003, living in Virginia for a time. She married, and later divorced, a man in Richmond, Va., before moving to Southern California, where she opened a number of businesses, including a cellphone kiosk at the Montebello Town Center, public records show.

Among her employees was her younger sister, Mariya, who left Russia on a short-term visa in 2009.

Tatiana married Syed Raheel Farook in 2011, and the two witnesses listed on their marriage license were Syed Rizwan Farook and Marquez.

In the days after the attacks, Marquez emerged as a central player in the FBI’s terror investigation. While most who knew him described Marquez as a goofy, nervous man who posted cartoons to Facebook and had dreams of enlisting in the Navy, federal prosecutors said he underwent a change after he fell under Syed Rizwan Farook’s sway.

The two began studying radical ideology together in 2011, and mapped out a terror attack that would have involved hurling pipeboms and raining bullets on drivers on the 91 Freeway, according to a criminal complaint filed earlier this year.

Marquez was eventually charged with buying two of the rifles used in the San Bernardino shootings, though prosecutors have said he was not involved in the Dec. 2 attack.

The 24-year-old checked himself into UCLA-Harbor Medical center the day after the shooting. He later told investigators that his marriage was a sham and provided details his role in Farook’s plot during lengthy interview with FBI agents, prosecutors say.

The FBI investigation is continuing.

SCOTUS Ruled and EPA Ignores

Posted on by

EPA Continues To Implement Global Warming Plan Supreme Court Said It Couldn’t

DailyCaller: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials are moving ahead with a key part of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) despite the Supreme Court issuing a stay against the agency’s global warming plan in February.

The EPA submitted a proposal to the White House for green energy subsidies for states that meet the federally mandated carbon dioxide reduction goals early. The Clean Energy Incentive Program would give “credit for power generated by new wind and solar projects in 2020 and 2021” and a “double credit for energy efficiency measures in low-income communities,” according to Politico’s Morning Energy.

Te move seems to violate the Supreme Court’s stay against CPP preventing the EPA from implementing its plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants. EPA, however, argues it’s doing this for states that want to voluntarily cut emissions — despite this being part of CPP.

“Many states and tribes have indicated that they plan to move forward voluntarily to work to cut carbon pollution from power plants and have asked the agency to continue providing support and developing tools that may support those efforts, including the CEIP,” reads a statement provided to Politico from EPA.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is set to talk more about the plan Wednesday afternoon and will no doubt defend it from critics who will say the agency is violating a Supreme Court order.

“Sending this proposal to OMB for review is a routine step and it is consistent with the Supreme Court stay of the Clean Power Plan,” the EPA said.

EPA has been moving forward with aspects of the CPP despite the Supreme Court’s decision. After the court’s February decision, EPA began signalling it would continue to work with states that want to “voluntarily” move forward.

“Are we going to respect the decision of the Supreme Court? You bet, of course we are,” McCarthy told utility executives in February. “But it doesn’t mean it’s the only thing we’re working on and it doesn’t mean we won’t continue to support any state that voluntarily wants to move forward.”

Likewise, the head of EPA’s air and radiation office, Janet McCabe, has also suggested the rule will eventually be upheld.

“EPA utility rules have been stayed twice before, and ultimately upheld,” McCabe said while participating in a panel discussion in Bloomington, Ind., last week. “It’s only smart for states to keep working on this.”

“We stand ready at EPA to help any state that wants to move forward with their planning activities,” McCabe said, noting that some states pledged to cut CO2 after the Supreme Court stayed CPP.

McCabe was referring to an agreement signed by 17 states in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision pledging to push forward fighting global warming. The agreement, signed mostly by Democratic governors, promotes cooperation between states in promoting green energy, not explicitly mentioning global warming.

McCabe neglected to mention the 30 states and state agencies suing EPA to get CPP struck down. That coalition of states was also joined by dozens of business groups, the coal industry and labor unions fighting to keep coal-fired power plants from being forced to close.

“EPA has crossed a line by assigning itself vast regulatory authority that surpasses anything ever contemplated by Congress,” Jeffrey Connor, interim CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), said in a statement. NRECA opposes CPP.

“The fact is that EPA didn’t produce a rule simply to reduce emissions — it crafted a radical plan to restructure the U.S. power sector,” Connor said.

*****

From the White House:

The Clean Power Plan

The Clean Power Plan sets achievable standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. By setting these goals and enabling states to create tailored plans to meet them, the Plan will:

Protect the health of American families. In 2030, it will:

  • Prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths

  • Prevent 1,700 non-fatal heart attacks

  • Prevent 90,000 asthma attacks in children

  • Prevent 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays

Boost our economy by:

  • Leading to 30 percent more renewable energy generation
    in 2030

  • Creating tens of thousands of jobs

  • Continuing to lower the costs of renewable energy

Save the average American family:

  • Nearly $85 a year on their energy bills in 2030

  • Save enough energy to power 30 million homes
    in 2030

  • Save consumers $155 billion from 2020-2030

 

 

WTH Tennessee, Against Pro-Life Voters?

Posted on by
In Tennessee, a Federal Judge Disenfranchises Pro-Life Voters

DFrench/NRO: No one should ever doubt the Left’s commitment to abortion. For the sake of preserving the right to kill an unborn child, the Left will sacrifice democracy and even reason itself. Pro-life lawyers have a term for liberal judges’ tendency to twist the Constitution for the cause of death — the “abortion distortion.” The latest example comes from Nashville, Tenn., where an Obama-appointee federal judge just wrote perhaps the least credible judicial opinion I’ve ever read. But first, some background. Before the 2014 election, Tennessee, one of America’s most conservative and religious states, had become the South’s abortion supermarket, all because of a Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that declared that the Tennessee constitution protected the “right” to an abortion to a greater degree than did even Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Consequently, even if a pro-life law would have passed federal constitutional muster, Tennessee state courts would strike it down.

 KAGSTV

Tennessee voters responded by passing Amendment 1 — a pro-life constitutional amendment that reversed the state’s high court and unequivocally declared that “nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.” Tennessee’s amendment process is arduous. First, a proposed amendment has to pass with a majority in both houses. Then, after the next legislative election, the amendment has to pass with a two-thirds majority. Finally, it comes before the people. But even there an amendment faces a double hurdle. It has to pass with a majority of the vote, and the “yes” votes have to equal a “majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor.” For decades, Tennessee officials have interpreted this rule as merely requiring that the total “yes” vote exceed half of the total gubernatorial vote. In other words, a person could vote yes on the amendment and still have their vote count even if they didn’t vote for governor. In fact, amendment proponents expressly told voters that they could pursue exactly this strategy — they didn’t have to vote for governor to have their vote count.
After their loss, pro-abortion leftists sued in federal court, making the astonishing claim that this process violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Why? Because it didn’t give the “no” side enough advantages in the fight against the amendment. They claimed that Tennessee’s process violated their right to “participate on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.” They also claimed that the Tennessee Constitution required election officials to count only the votes of people who voted for governor. So if you wanted your vote to count for the amendment, you had to vote for governor.
On Friday, Judge Kevin Sharp did what liberal federal judges do: found a way to rule for abortion rights. He backed the plaintiffs, holding that the traditional manner of counting votes for constitutional amendments violated both the state and the federal constitutions. He then ordered a statewide recount, in which only the votes of those who voted in both the amendment contest and the gubernatorial race would be counted.
In an opinion full of insulting asides and other potshots at amendment supporters, Sharp claimed that the votes of those who voted in the governor’s race but against the amendment were “not given the same weight” as those who voted for Amendment 1 but did not vote in the governor’s race. In other words, he claimed that a voter who did not vote for governor but did vote for the amendment had more influence over the process than a voter who chose to vote in both elections. Yet that additional influence was the product not of discrimination but of voter choice, of deliberate voting strategy.
The judge’s solution to this fabricated problem was to give the votes of those who voted for the amendment but not for governor no weight at all. In other words, his concern for voting rights (he called the right to vote “precious” and “fundamental”) was so strong that he just went ahead and disenfranchised thousands of voters who relied on longstanding state-government interpretations of its own constitution. Moreover, he signaled that even if a recount shows that the amendment would still pass under his new, judicially created standard, he may still rule that the election itself should be voided.

When I was in law school, one of my radical leftist professors declared that the role of a judge was to first determine the “right” result, then to manipulate law and precedent to justify the pre-ordained outcome. He turned the process of judicial reasoning on its head, and my classmates loved it. Abortion jurisprudence is the product of exactly this ideology. Sexual revolutionaries aren’t just professors, activists, and lawmakers. Some are robed Robespierres, and you can always count on them to protect the culture of death. — David French is an attorney, and a staff writer at National Review.

A Judge Issued a Gag Order, Preventing Speech

Posted on by

Oregon Bakers Continue Legal Fight, Challenging ‘Gag Order’

Harkness/DailySignal

The Oregon bakers who were ordered to pay $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding filed a brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals on Monday, arguing the ruling against them was biased and violates both the Oregon and U.S. constitutions.

“In America, you’re innocent until proven guilty,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, the group representing Aaron and Melissa Klein in their legal fight. “Commissioner Brad Avakian decided the Kleins were guilty before he even heard their case. This is an egregious violation of the Kleins’ rights to due process. We hope the Oregon Court of Appeals will remedy this by dismissing the government’s case against the Kleins.”

Brad Avakian, commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, was responsible for issuing the final ruling on the case. On July 2, 2015, he ruled that in declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding due to their religious beliefs, the Kleins violated an Oregon law that prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation against people based on their sexual orientation.

Avakian ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in mental, physical, and emotional damages to the couple whom they denied service.

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer (who have since married) filed a complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Ore., in February 2013, a month after the Kleins refused to make a cake for the same-sex couple’s wedding.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries opened its investigation into Sweet Cakes by Melissa in August 2013, six months after the agency received the initial complaint from Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer alleging the bakery owners discriminated against them.

Yet, in the appeal brief filed Monday, lawyers for the Kleins argued that Avakian had publicly declared the Kleins guilty before even waiting for an investigation to take place, citing a Feb. 5, 2013, Facebook post.

In that post, Avakian writes, “Everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean they can disobey laws that are already in place. Having one set of rules for everybody ensures that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives.”

 

In August 2013, after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced it was opening an investigation to determine whether the Kleins had discriminated against the same-sex couple, Avakian also commented about the case, suggesting he had already decided that the Kleins were guilty. “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs,” he said in an interview with The Oregonian, “but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate.”

“The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate,” Avakian added.

Ken Klukowski, an attorney at First Liberty, told The Daily Signal that “it’s clear” Avakian demonstrated bias “that rises to the level of violating due process.”

In addition to ruling the Kleins must pay $135,000, Avakian also ordered the former bakery owners to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication … to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote in the final order.

The justification for this part of his final order originates from an interview Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in 2014. During the interview, Aaron said that they, “don’t do same-sex weddings,” and “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Avakian wrote those statements demonstrate a “prospective intent to discriminate.”

“This gag order that they’re under right now, where they have been ordered by the government that they can’t even discuss these things with the media,” Klukowski said, “is shockingly overbroad.”

“There are aspects of their beliefs and of this case, including aspects of their religious beliefs about marriage, that if they were to share these things publicly, that the government could punish them, saying that it amounts to the equivalent of advertising their intention to continue engaging in illegal discrimination,” Klukowski said.

“That censors so much protected speech.”

The punishment for violating the order is “notoriously unspecific,” Klukowski added. Because of that, lawyers for the Kleins are treading carefully on what they allow their clients to do and say in public.

“This is a couple with young children and where the law does not specify what the most severe penalty could be where as far as we know, the sky could be the limit, that’s where we owe it to our clients to err on the side of caution and try to shield them from additional exposure that could have consequences of unspecified severity,” he said.

In reviewing the appeal, the Oregon Appeal Court will determine whether or not the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins’ constitutional rights to religious freedom, free speech, and due process.

The Kleins maintain that they did not decline the same-sex couple due to their sexual orientation—stating in the brief that they have served one of the women who filed the complaint against them in the past. Instead, they maintain they were only declining to participate in an event that they disagree with because of their Christian beliefs about marriage.

Avakian ruled there is “no distinction” between the two situations.

Klukowski said he expects oral arguments to take place later this year. If the Oregon Court of Appeals rules against the Kleins, the next step would be appealing to the Oregon Supreme Court.

 

A New Scheme for Syrian Refugees?

Posted on by

Related: Obama pledge to welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees far behind schedule

Read more from the White House directly:

Refugees Welcome graphicInfographic: 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…