Federal judge opens the door to Clinton deposition in email case
A federal judge on Wednesday opened the door to interviewing Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton as part of a review into her use of a private email server while secretary of State.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia laid out the ground rules for interviewing multiple State Department officials about the emails, with an eye toward finishing the depositions in the weeks before the party nominating conventions.
Clinton herself may be forced to answer questions under oath, Sullivan said, though she is not yet being forced to take that step.
“Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary,” Sullivan said in an order on Wednesday. [READ THE ORDER BELOW] Discovery is the formal name for the evidence-gathering process, which includes depositions.
“If plaintiff believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time.”
The order, which came in the course of a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, leaves open the possibility that Clinton will be forced to answer detailed questions on the eve of her formal selection as the Democratic presidential nominee about her creation of the server.
Any deposition would surely roil the presidential race and force her campaign to confront the issue, which has dogged her for a year. “Her legal team is really going to fight that really hard,” predicted Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney who has raised questions about Clinton’s email setup.
“You have to take her deposition in this case to fully understand how it was designed and the whys and the what-fors.”
While leaving the door open to Clinton’s eventual deposition, Sullivan on Wednesday ordered at least six current and former State Department employees to answer questions from Judicial Watch, which has filed multiple lawsuits over the Clinton email case.
That list includes longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, under secretary for management Patrick Kennedy, former executive secretary Stephen Mull and Bryan Pagliano, the IT official believed to be responsible for setting up and maintaining the server.
The judge also ordered the State Department to prepare a formal answer about Clinton’s emails. Donald Reid, a senior security official, may also be asked to answer questions, if Judicial Watch so decides.
That process is scheduled to be wrapped up within eight weeks, putting the deadline in the final week of June.
Judicial Watch brought suit against the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in an effort to bring Abedin’s emails to light. The lawsuit has since evolved into a battleground over Clinton’s use of the private server.
Clinton’s Republican critics have repeatedly accused her of setting up the private server and then deleting roughly half its contents to evade public scrutiny. In the process, her critics say, Clinton may have made government secrets vulnerable to hackers.
The FBI and government inspectors general are conducting separate investigations related to the server, and the prospect that classified information might have been mishandled.
Clinton has said that she has yet to be contacted by the FBI to set up an interview as part of its investigation, despite long speculation that she will be.
But any deposition in the Judicial Watch case could frustrate that process for Clinton’s camp.
“You only want your client to tell their story once if at all,” said Whitaker. “If you’re going to stake out some ground in a deposition which is under oath, that’s really a dangerous opportunity to lay out a story that you say is true under penalty of perjury and then it might be used against you, ultimately, if you have to take the stand again.”
In his order, Sullivan pointed to revelations from the emails appearing to show officials trying to evade demands of FOIA.
In one email, for instance, Mull told Abedin that Clinton’s emails “would be subject to FOIA requests” if she used a department-issued BlackBerry, even though her identity would remain secret.
Abedin responded that the idea “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
In February, Sullivan ruled that the evidence-gathering process could proceed, and the two sides have been haggling since then.
Sullivan had previously suggested that Clinton could be forced to respond to questions, but his order on Wednesday offered the clearest indication that it remains a real possibility.
In his order on Wednesday, Sullivan denied the organization’s efforts to combine his granting of depositions and a similar decision by another judge in a separate case.
******
In part from National Law Journal: Clinton’s personal lawyer, Williams & Connolly of counsel David Kendall, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately return a request for comment.
If Clinton is subpoenaed to testify, she wouldn’t be the only presidential candidate personally involved in litigation.
In February, a District of Columbia Superior Court judge ordered Donald Trump to sit for a deposition in his lawsuit against celebrity chef Geoffrey Zakarian, who abandoned plans for a restaurant in Trump’s new hotel in downtown Washington.
Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said that Trump’s campaign schedule wasn’t a shield against deposition. “Neither the rules nor the controlling authority create a special exception for individuals that that ‘may have a busy schedule’ as a result of seeking public office,” Holeman wrote.
Trump could also be called as a witness in cases in California and New York about Trump University, a now-closed for-profit institution accused of fraud. Trump, according to news reports, is on the witness list in the case in California, and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has said that Trump would be an “essential” witness at trial. Read more.
Category Archives: U.S. Constitution
History and Money, Immigrants into the U.S.
Drug traffic route in the region
The porous 600-mile border between Guatemala and Mexico offers Central American immigrants a ready passage to “el norte“—the United States. It includes 63 uncontrolled transit points, 44 of which can be passed in a vehicle.
The same conditions attracting Central American immigrants also make the Guatemala-Mexico border region home to a thriving drug trade. Guatemala’s Prensa Libre, recently reported that Guatemala’s three departments (or states) bordering Mexico—San Marcos, Huehuetenango, and the Petén—have come under the direct control of violent drug cartels.
In San Marcos, a single drug lord, Juan Ortiz Chamalé, owns virtually all of the properties on the frontier. Huehuetenango is the site of an increasingly violent conflict between Mexican and Guatemalan drug lords. The latest incident there involved a wholesale massacre of 17 to 40 people (estimates vary) at a horserace organized by narcos. While in the Petén, drug mafias, supported by the police, have forced small and large landowners to sell their lands.
Violence, promoted by the drug trade, delinquency, and death squads has become a part of daily life in these Guatemalan departments. Bodies riddled with bullet holes regularly appear by the sides of roads, along riverbeds, and in open fields. Well-documented evidence demonstrates that police and military forces are directly engaged in this violence through their links to drug cartels, the maras (gangs), and death squads.
Undocumented Central American immigrants, fleeing the struggling economies of their respective countries, are often victimized by this violence. And their plight is about to get worse. The recently implemented U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) will surely devastate what is left of rural livelihoods. And, what’s more, the conditions that make the Guatemala-Mexico border an immigrant corridor and a Mecca for drug trafficking also make it a central target of Plan Mexico, the U.S.-financed anti-drug militarization program, pushed through the U.S. Congress by President George Bush in June 2008.
Undocumented Central American immigrants, already subjected to subhuman conditions in their search for viable livelihoods, now face the oppressive confluence of these powerful transnational forces—the drug trade, militarization, and free trade.
Plan Mexico
The U.S.-backed Plan Mexico, known as the “Mérida Initiative” in policy circles, provides $1.6 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. The stated intention of the program involves “security aid to design and carry out counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, and border security measures.”
U.S. Congressional leaders complained about the secrecy of negotiations for Plan Mexico and the absence of human rights guarantees, but they did nothing more than demand the paltry sum of $1 million in additional funding to support human rights groups in Mexico.
Researcher Laura Carlsen has noted that Plan Mexico is the “securitized” extension of trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and CAFTA. Indeed, Plan Mexico is the successor project to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a post-9/11 initiative negotiated by the NAFTA countries. The State Department’s Thomas Shannon made the link between free trade and security explicit: “We have worked through the Security and Prosperity Partnership to improve our commercial and trading relationship, we have also worked to improve our security cooperation. To a certain extent, we’re armoring NAFTA.”
Evidently, neoconservative policy framers have purposefully coupled free trade and security. Free trade agreements promote the free circulation of goods, while prohibiting the same circulation by workers. Since neoliberal trade deals eliminate agricultural subsidies and open poor countries to a flood of cheap imported goods, economically displaced workers will naturally seek new sources of income—even if that means crossing borders.
Militarizing borders and identifying undocumented workers who cross them as criminals (“illegal”) are the logical—though sordid—next steps in anticipating and “guarding against” the effects of free trade. The militarization of borders has done nothing to stop immigration, which provides an essential labor force to the United States. But the criminalization of undocumented mobile immigrant workers has deprived them of basic rights of citizenship, thereby making them vulnerable to increasing levels of violence and human rights violations.
The U.S.-driven designation of “internal enemies”—in this case immigrants—as a rationale for building an already mushrooming security apparatus and militarizing societies is, of course, nothing new, especially in Latin America. What is new is that this militarization has become nearly void of any social content. Even during the Cold War, U.S. “national security” doctrines were generally accompanied by social programs, such as the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps, which in small measure alleviated poverty and explicitly recognized economic conditions as a root of “the problem.”
The end of the Cold War eliminated an even token emphasis on poverty and with it, all but the most minimal efforts to offer social assistance. The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) found that the Bush administration granted $874 million in military and police assistance to Latin America in 2004 an amount almost equal to the $946 million provided in economic and social programs. WOLA reported that with the exception of Colombia, military and police aid has historically been less than half of the total provided for economic and social aid. Moreover, military and police aid used to be directed by the U.S. State Department, assuring a degree of congressional oversight. Now, this aid is increasingly managed by the Department of Defense, thereby eliminating this oversight and effectively making militarization the predominant rationale of U.S. foreign policy.
Living on the Border
The situation of Central American immigrants on Mexico’s southern border illustrates the central problems and contradictions of Washington’s emphasis on free trade and militarization. And the situation is certain to get worse as thousands of immigrants are deported by the United States to their countries of origin in Central America.
Immigrants are fully aware of the risks they take, but economic conditions leave them few alternatives. With a look of desperation following a three-day journey from his home, one Honduran immigrant in the Mexican border town of Tapachula explained, “We don’t do this by choice. We don’t want to leave our families. But imagine a man looking at his children and seeing them hungry.” Back home, he faces wages averaging $6 per day in Honduras and a scarcity of opportunities.
When asked about the dangers they anticipate on their journey north, Central American immigrants offer a catalog of terrors: beatings, sexual assaults, robberies, kidnappings, and murders. Ademar Barilli, a Catholic priest and director of the Casa del Migrante in Guatemala’s border town of Tecún Umán, observed, “Immigrants almost expect that their rights will be violated in every sense because they are from another country and are undocumented.”
Heyman Vasquez, a Catholic priest who directs a shelter for migrants in the town of Arriaga in Chiapas, Mexico, maintains detailed records of the violations suffered by migrants passing through his shelter. In a five-month period in 2008, a third of the men and 40% of the women he serves reported assault or some other form of abuse in their 160-mile journey from the Mexico-Guatemala region to Arriaga.
Police are often the perpetrators of these violations. In Guatemala, Father Barilli and others described cases of police forcing Salvadoran and Honduran immigrants to disembark from buses, where they take their documents and demand money. Once they make it into Mexico, immigrants are subject to abuse by Los Zetas, a notorious drug-trafficking network composed of former law enforcement and military agents linked with the Gulf Cartel.
Los Zetas are known to work with Mexican police in the kidnapping of immigrants to demand money from their family members in the United States. Immigrants also report robberies, beatings, and rapes at the hands of Los Zetas. Recently, in Puebla, Mexico, 32 undocumented Central Americans were kidnapped and tortured by the Zetas with the support of municipal police. In this case, after the migrants escaped, local community members captured a number of the responsible police agents and held them until Federal authorities arrived.
A U.S. State Department report on human rights in Mexico from 2007 concluded, “Many police were involved in kidnapping, extortion, or providing protection for, or acting directly on behalf of organized crime and drug traffickers. Impunity was pervasive to an extent that victims often refused to file complaints.”
That impunity means abused migrants have few places to turn is painfully obvious to one Salvadoran immigrant in the Mexican border town of Tapachula. He had just been deported from the United States, where his wife, a legal resident, and two U.S.-born children live in Los Angeles. “The police are involved. You can’t file complaints,” he said. Besides, the wheels of Mexican justice turn notoriously slow—if at all.
Despite the dire scenario, it is not uncommon for many Central American immigrants to receive a helping hand along the way in their journey to El Norte, whether its food, water, money, or shelter. As one undocumented Honduran explained in Tapachula, “Almost everyone has someone in their family who has migrated. Most understand the need.”
“Security” and Violence
Security initiatives in Central America are notoriously violent and further militarize societies still recovering from decades of brutal civil wars. And, historically, when the Pentagon gets involved, repressive tactics increase.
The Bush administration’s principle security concerns in Central America of drug trafficking and “transnational gangs” have led to a series of “security cooperation” agreements. The first regional conference on “joint security” was chaired by El Salvador’s president, Tony Saca, who first introduced the “Mano Dura” (Iron Fist) initiative—a package of authoritarian militarized policing methods aimed at youth gangs adopted throughout the region. In attendance was then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, responsible for advocating torture of prisoners in Guantánamo.
The conference took place in El Salvador in February 2007 and resulted in the creation of a transnational anti-gang unit (TAG), which El Salvador’s justice and security minister, René Figueroa described as “an organized offensive at a regional level,” with the US State Department and the FBI coordinating with national police forces. Gonzales, promised Washington would finance a new program to train regional police forces and this promise has been fulfilled partially with the establishment of a highly controversial police-training academy in El Salvador, which is closed to public scrutiny and includes little support for human rights.
In many ways, Plan Mexico, is a mano dura campaign writ large. For 2008, Plan Mexico will provide $400 million to Mexico and $65 million to Central America. More than half of the total funds will go directly to providing police and military weapons and training, even though the police and military in these countries have been implicated in crime and human rights violations.
As Plan Mexico arms and trains military and police forces implicated in violent crime, it also provides millions of dollars for an immigration institute responsible for tightening Mexico’s southern borders through monitoring, bio-data collection, a Guatemalan guest-worker program, and border control.
Undocumented immigrants will be caught in the web of this violence, particularly since Plan Mexico also continues the trend toward the criminalization of migrants. As Laura Carlsen, observes, “By including ‘border security’ and explicitly targeting ‘flows of illicit goods and persons,’ the initiative equates migrant workers with illegal contraband and terrorist threats.”
The dehumanization of undocumented immigrants in the United States, and elsewhere, and the growing infringement of their basic rights should serve as a dire warning to all “citizens.” The undocumented are the canaries in the coalmine: the violation of their rights signals a growing repressive climate that jeopardizes everyone’s liberties.
Fire on the Border
Free trade agreements create the conditions that force people to migrate to the United States as an underpaid, politically disenfranchised, and therefore unprotected labor force. Now the economic crisis in the United States has increased pressure to expel undocumented workers, violating a host of human rights standards in the process. Deportations also increase labor pressure in immigrants’ countries of origin, where the global economic crisis stands to further decrease the already limited opportunities for work in “legitimate” industries.
From a purely humanitarian perspective, the governments of the United States, Mexico, and Central America need to address this crisis by developing policies that improve the conditions of poverty that cause immigration. Throwing guns at the problem will only make things worse.
Sure, drug lords are firmly entrenched in the Guatemala-Mexico border region. But Plan Mexico will no more eliminate their presence, than the Mano Dura campaigns eliminated the gangs. Or, for that matter, any more than the militarization of borders has eliminated immigration. Instead, Plan Mexico, like its predecessors, will increase the level of violence in the region by providing more weapons to corrupt police and military forces.
As more and more resources shift toward militarization, policing and surveillance, fewer resources are available for programs that ease pressure to emigrate—namely, education, jobs, medical care, food subsidies, housing, and legal recourse. Meanwhile, governments are increasingly ceding responsibility for protection of even narrowly defined human rights to under-funded non-governmental organizations.
Repressive immigration policies, narcotrafficking, and free trade all combined to form a combustible situation along the Mexico-Guatemala border. Plan Mexico is the spark, and once the flames start, no one will be able to put out the fire. And it’s the undocumented migrants who will continue to get burned.
Carter’s Ultimatum to Russia
STUTTGART, Germany (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter blasted what the U.S. and its allies see as Russian aggression in Europe, saying Tuesday that Moscow is “going backward in time” with warlike actions that compel an American military buildup on NATO’s eastern flank.
“We do not seek to make Russia an enemy,” Carter said at a ceremony to install a new head of the military’s U.S. European Command and top NATO commander in Europe. “But make no mistake: We will defend our allies, the rules-based international order, and the positive future it affords us,” he said.
Carter’s remarks reflect U.S. aggravation with Moscow on multiple fronts, including its intervention in eastern Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and what Carter called Russian efforts to intimidate its Baltic neighbors — countries the United States is treaty-bound to defend because they are NATO members.
Carter said the “most disturbing” Russian rhetoric was about using nuclear weapons.
“Moscow’s nuclear saber-rattling raises troubling questions about Russia’s leaders’ commitment to strategic stability, their respect for norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and whether they respect the profound caution that nuclear-age leaders showed with regard to brandishing nuclear weapons,” he said.
The end of the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was thought to have virtually ended the prospect of nuclear conflict with Moscow. But the speeches at Tuesday’s change-of-command ceremony emphasized the possibility of history repeating itself, or at least ending a period of warmer U.S.-Russian relations.
Senior White House officials said the U.S. and its partners were shifting into a new phase focused on military deterrence to Moscow. Additional NATO forces that will rotate through countries on Russia’s eastern flank will be enough to defend NATO countries if Russia were to attack, said the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
To that end, the U.S. plans to add a third U.S. Army combat brigade in Europe in the coming year as part of a $3.4 billion initiative, Carter said. On Monday, he said NATO is considering establishing a continuous rotation of up to 4,000 troops in the Baltic states and possibly Poland.
That force, which could include some U.S. troops, is among options expected to be considered at a NATO defense meeting in June. U.S. officials said they were encouraging other NATO members to commit troops to the force as well.
But U.S. attempts to control or direct Russia haven’t fared well. The U.S has been unable to end Russia’s occupation of parts of Ukraine and support for separatist rebels. And Washington is desperately seeking Moscow’s help to enforce a cease-fire in Syria between the Russian-backed government and Western-supported rebels, and eventually usher President Bashar Assad out of power.
On both fronts, the United States has been running into brick walls with the Russians.
U.S. officials said that they had “explicitly compartmentalized” the various issues the U.S. is discussing with Russia. Yet it’s unlikely that Russia’s government sees it that way.
The U.S. and NATO have sought to avoid provoking Moscow more than necessary, such as opting against opening new bases or permanently stationing troops in the Baltic countries. The Kremlin has raised concerns that permanent basing would violate a 1997 NATO-Russia agreement that prohibits permanent basing “in the current and foreseeable security environment,” and senior U.S. officials said that NATO had decided to abide by those provisions.
Carter said he regretted the deterioration in relations with Moscow.
“We haven’t had to prioritize deterrence on NATO’s eastern flank for the past 25 years, but while I wish it were otherwise, now we have to,” he said at an outdoor ceremony, speaking from a podium framed by birch trees and drenched in sunshine.
Carter emphasized his hope that Russia will abandon what he called its confrontational approach.
“The United States will continue to hold out the possibility that Russia will assume the role of a constructive partner moving forward, not isolated and going backward in time as it appears to be today,” he said. “Much of the progress we’ve made together since the end of the Cold War, we accomplished with Russia. Let me repeat that. Not in spite of Russia, not against Russia, not without Russia, but with it.”
Related: Operation Atlantic Resolve
Carter made no mention of two post-Cold War developments that many believe prompted, at least in part, Russia’s turn away from the West, namely, the expansion of NATO to Russia’s very doorstep and U.S. placement of missile defenses in Europe.
“We’ll keep the door open for Russia,” he said. But it’s up to the Kremlin to decide.”
Army Gen. Curtis “Mike” Scaparrotti was installed Tuesday as head of U.S. European Command and the top NATO commander in Europe. Scaparrotti most recently commanded U.S. and allied troops in South Korea and has commanded troops in Afghanistan. He succeeds Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who has pointedly and repeatedly warned that NATO must better prepare for an adversarial relationship with Russia.
$600 Billion, Failing Classrooms
US Spends $600 Billion/Year on Education, But Large Majority of H.S. Seniors Not College-Ready
Hollingsworth/(CNSNews.com) – Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more than $600 billion per year on public education, a large majority of high school seniors are not ready for college-level work in math and reading, according to the latest results of the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “the nation’s report card”.
Demonstrating proficiency in a core subject like math or reading is considered proof of being academically prepared for college-level courses.
However, just 25 percent of 12th graders tested “Proficient” or above in math on the 2015 NAEP, down slightly from the 26 percent reported in 2013.
That means that three-quarters of the nation’s soon-to-be-graduating high school seniors are not prepared to succeed in college math courses.
Although more 12th graders (37 percent) tested “Proficient” or above in reading, that figure was also down one percent from the 2013 results.
According to NAEP, nearly two-thirds of high seniors do not have the written language skills they will need in college.
The average score of the 31,900 12th graders who took the 2015 NAEP math test was 152, which was down in all four content areas and one point lower than the average score (153) in 2013, Peggy Carr, acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), told reporters during a webinar on Wednesday announcing the latest NAEP results.
Only three percent of those taking the math assessment tested “Advanced.” Another 22 percent tested “Proficient”, with 37 percent of test-takers demonstrating a “Basic” mastery of mathematics.
However, the largest contingent – 38 percent – tested at the lowest “Below Basic” level. “There is a larger proportion of students at the bottom of the distribution” than in 2013, Carr acknowledged.
English Language Learners, who posted a six-point gain, were the only student sub-group to significantly increase their math scores over 2013 levels, she pointed out.
The average score in reading (287) was not significantly different from the average score reported in 2013 (288), Carr said.
Six percent of high school seniors scored in the “Advanced” reading category, with 31 percent testing “Proficient”, and 35 percent scoring in the “Basic” range.
However, 28 percent failed to demonstrate even basic mastery of the written word – three percent more than in 2013.
Carr noted that the 2015 NAEP results remained virtually unchanged for various racial and ethnic sub-groups compared to 2013. In general, white and Hispanic males tended to do better on the math tests, while females overall did better on the reading assessments, she pointed out.
Education experts also noted that average math scores were higher for students who took more challenging pre-calculus and calculus classes, and average reading scores were the highest for students who reported reading more than 20 pages of text a day in school or while doing their homework assignments.
When CNSNews.com asked how the latest reading and math NAEP scores compared to student test scores worldwide, Carr replied that “we will wait to see” when the next international results are released in November and December.
According to the latest available figures from NCES, “the 50 states and D.C. reported $603.7 billion in funding collected for public elementary and secondary education in 2013.”
State and local governments provided 91 percent of all education funding, while the federal government paid the remaining 9 percent.
*****
Don’t go away yet, there is more and it is worse.
Obama budgets $17,613 for every new illegal minor, more than Social Security retirees get
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner: President Obama has budgeted $17,613 for each of the estimated 75,000 Central American teens expected to illegally cross into the United States this year, $2,841 more than the average annual Social Security retirement benefit, according to a new report.
The total bill to taxpayers: $1.3 billion in benefits to “unaccompanied children,” more than double what the federal government spent in 2010, according to an analysis of the administration’s programs for illegal minors from the Center for Immigration Studies. The average Social Security retirement benefit is $14,772.
The report notes that the president’s budget, facing congressional approval, includes another $2.1 billion for refugees, which can include the illegals from Central America, mostly Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
What’s more, the administration is also spending heavily on a program with the United Nations to help the illegal minors avoid the dangerous trip by declaring them refugees and handing them a plane ticket to the U.S. where, once here, they get special legal status.
The report, titled “Welcoming Unaccompanied Alien Children to the United States,” is a deep dive into the administration’s evolving efforts to let hundreds of thousands of mostly 16- and 17-year-old males settle in the country.
It said that most of the undocumented minors do not qualify for refugee status or are even in any danger in their native countries. Instead, they are seeking to unify with their family members, commonly parents in the United States illegally.
The report cited Department of Health and Human Services data showing the trend. “New data,” said CIS, “shows that 80 percent of the 71,000 Central American children placed between February 2014 and September 2015 were released to sponsors who are in the United States illegally.”
Go here for charts and full report.
Author Nayla Rush suggested that the administration’s Central American Refugee/Parole Program with the United Nations that declares minors refugees could have the effect of giving legal status to their illegal parents once in the U.S.
“Children will be able to qualify for refugee status and then be flown to the United States. As a reminder, refugees receive automatic legal status and are required to apply for a green card within their first year following arrival. They can apply for citizenship five years from the date of entry.
“Since parents from Central America illegally present in the United States could not benefit from the CAM program and sponsor their children, perhaps the reverse can take place with children admitted under this new version of the refugee program. Children, acquiring legal status followed by naturalization by the time they reach adulthood, could indeed sponsor their parents,” wrote Rush.
Who Wins, Biden, Iran or al Sadr?
Do you wonder if Vice President Biden is meeting with al Sadr? Biden would never make a surprise visit to Iraq unless something quite serious was at issue.
NYT: After arriving at the American embassy by helicopter, Mr. Biden was driven to the nearby Government Palace to meet Mr. Abadi.
Mr. Biden last visited Iraq in November 2011, just weeks before the last American troops in Iraq were scheduled to leave. In a solemn ceremony, Mr. Biden saluted Iraqi troops, trained and equipped with billions of dollars from the United States, saying he hoped they would safeguard the country. More here.
US Vice President Biden in Iraq ‘to resolve political crisis’
DW: US Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Iraq on a surprise visit aimed at helping Iraqi leaders resolve a political crisis. It is hindering the country’s efforts to defeat the self-declared ‘Islamic State.’
Who is Muqtada al Sadr? Muqtada al-Sadr is of Iraqi and Iranian ancestry. After the fall of the Saddam government in 2003, Muqtada al-Sadr organized thousands of his supporters into a political movement, which includes a military wing known as the Jaysh al-Mahdi or Mahdi Army). The name refers to the Mahdi, a long-since disappeared Imam who is believed by Shi’a Muslims to be due to reappear when the end of time approaches. This group has periodically engaged in violent conflict with the United States and other Coalition forces.
Related: Mahdi Army
Barack Obama ordered all U.S. military presence out of Iraq and it was completed in 2011. Obama stated the country was sovereign and stable and for this reason there was no reason to maintain a ‘leave-behind’ force. All the while from 2010 forward and known full well by the Obama National Security Council:
CTC: On a more significant level, the revival of al-Sadr’s political fortunes are less about Iranian influence and more about his followers’ ability to cleverly exploit electoral politics to their advantage. The latest parliamentary elections provided such an opportunity, placing al-Sadr in the center of the political map. The key to the Sadrists’ electoral success was how they applied systematic polling methods such as databases with information on voters in all provinces and a cunning campaign strategy to win voters in the south.[16] Along with anti-establishment and populist tactics, such as the staged referendum as a way to discredit al-Maliki’s authority in the Shi`a urban centers, al-Sadr was able to present himself and his followers as the primary political force to defend the Shi`a population. Also, it is possible that al-Sadr exploited his close ties with General Qasim Soleimani of the IRGC, who also played a part in lobbying the Iraqi National Alliance to merge with the State of Law coalition to boost his political fortunes within the Shi`a bloc. This political move took away the chance for Iyad Allawi’s secular-Sunni front to form a government, which would have considerably diminished al-Sadr’s role as a key political figure.
In the aftermath of the elections, al-Sadr’s public call for the return of JAM reveals a sense of confidence with the backing of not only Iran, but also a large Shi`a electorate. For now, the Sadrists also have the respect of al-Maliki, who was forced to make considerable concessions with al-Sadr to remain in power. In this light, al-Sadr may now feel he has the political capital to legitimize the full restoration of JAM as part of Iraq’s security institutions, which could be controlled by Sadrists in the next government.
Al-Sadr appeals for solution to Iraq’s political crisis
BAGHDAD (AP) — An influential Iraqi Shiite cleric on Wednesday called on the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to help find a solution to the country’s simmering political crisis “even through holding early elections.”
Muqtada al-Sadr’s statement came a day after lawmakers failed to hold a session to vote on whether to keep or oust the parliament speaker, Salim al-Jabouri, threatening to prolong Iraq’s paralyzing political crisis amid the fight against Islamic State group that controls key areas in country’s north and west.
Al-Sadr ordered Sadrist lawmakers to withdraw from a parliament sit-in that demands the country’s top leadership — parliament speaker, prime minister and president — step down. But al-Sadr called on his followers to continue rallying in Bagdad’s Tahrir Square to pressure the parliament to vote on a new government after a recent Cabinet reshuffle.
“We call upon the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations to interfere to get the Iraqi people out of their ordeal and to correct the political process even through holding early elections,” al-Sadr said in a handwritten statement issued online.
It is still unclear how the withdrawal of Sadrist lawmakers will affect the parliament sit-in which was started last week by dozens of lawmakers following delay on the vote on the Cabinet reshuffle. On Thursday, they chose eldest lawmaker, Adnan al-Janabi, as an interim speaker, but the move was rejected by the other camp, which argues the move was illegal because the needed quorum was not achieved.
Tuesday’s session was supposed to vote on whether or not to remove al-Jabouri, but it was adjourned when major political blocks walked away because they objected to al-Janabi presiding over the session.
Iraq is weathering its worst crisis in years with the Sunni extremist IS group still controlling key areas in the country’s north and west, including the second-largest city of Mosul. The country is also undergoing an acute economic crisis due to plummeting oil prices on the international market.