U.S. Expands Expands Iraqi Visa Program Tenfold

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
Tags: immigration reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

We have 12 million people living in this country without proper documentation, many of whom work, have families and pay taxes.

While Congress stalls year after year on providing a path to citizenship for them, and the radical right says there is no room for them, the Bush Administration has no problem playing favorites:

The American Embassy in Baghdad announced Thursday that it had expanded tenfold its program to help Iraqi employees of the American government here, who faced threats for their work, to obtain visas and ultimately citizenship in the United States.

Why should the Iraqis get special treatment? Because they provided aid to the U.S. in its unneccessary preemptive war that we entered under false pretenses?[More...]

The program will allow 5,000 Iraqis to go to the United States for each of the next five years. Each person can take immediate family members, who include spouses and children. More distant relatives, including siblings, parents and grandchildren, can apply under another program. So the actual numbers emigrating will probably be considerably higher. The average Iraqi household is estimated to have about six people, according to officials from the International Organization for Migration.

What about the Haitians? They face horrible fates when sent back home from the U.S. What about those from Mexico, many of whom work at jobs Americans don't want? When Congress does act on their behalf, will they have to go to the back of the line, learn English, pay fines and taxes -- all behind the Iraqis?

The answer seems to be yes, even as to those who are here seeking asylum:

....immigration experts warn that because there is a global cap on the number of refugees that the United States accepts and the slots are allocated by region — with some flexibility — it is possible that either Iraqi refugees will squeeze out others who are equally deserving or that not all Iraqi refugees who are eligible will be granted a space.

< DNC Releases Photo of Participant Tote Bags | Late Night: I Shall Be Released >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

U.S. Expands Expands Iraqi Visa Program Tenfold | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Even if we disagree with the war (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by kenosharick on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:09:25 PM EST

which I do, of course- the Iraqis who risked their lives to help Americans deserve to go to the front of the line. TEN TIMES? It should be MORE!!! Every Iraqi who is in danger for helping us, deserves help getting out. It is the right thing to do, they did not start bush's war. However, this should in no way negatively impact others.

: I disagree with the war (none / 0) (#35)
by john horse on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:53:49 AM EST

and agree with kenosharick. One reason that we should help them is that if they stay either they or their families will be in danger because they did help us. As I mentioned elsewhere if the surge had truly succeeded those who helped us would not be trying to leave.

There should be more visas overall, of course. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:11:24 PM EST

But I think this is the right thing to do.

: This must be a joke (none / 0) (#22)
by ChuckieTomato on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:14:08 PM EST

What's the argument for why we need more visas.

It's about time... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by pmj6 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:18:06 PM EST

...the program was expanded.

Let's not forget great many of these Iraqis joined the US in good faith, in the hopes the US would free them from an oppressive tyranny and create a prosperous democracy in its wake. I think they can be excused for their ignorance of the motives that animated the Bush administration. Forcing them to remain in Iraq will only increase the number of victims of Bush administration's policies.

ny concern.... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:39:09 AM EST

is that the program will be politicized, and will be restricted to those who "helped Americans". I especially don't want to see the program restricted to those who have been making money on this war -- Iraq is a cesspool of corruption, and a substantial proportion of the people who will be able to afford to emigrate from Iraq are those most likely to have been ripping off the US and Iraqi people.


: yup and start bringing all that money (none / 0) (#39)
by hellothere on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:20:22 AM EST

that went to iraq in suitcases come back to the use in suitcases. it might start minor inflation in some areas.

Well, look at the bright side. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:28:27 PM EST

Thirty years from now, we'll be enriched by the contributions of over 5 million Iraqi-Americans, just as we currently enjoy the blessings from a similar number of Vietnamese-Americans.

Bottom line: We can't just leave the collaborators in Iraq to suffer an inevitable fate. Regardless of rationale, they risked their lives to help our troops and personnel. At the very least, we owe them an opportunity to rebuild their lives in peace.

we in Mpls. / St. Paul (none / 0) (#17)
by Nettle on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:42:40 PM EST

not to get all Lou Dobsie on everyone, have taken in the vast majority of Somali and Hmong immigrant to the US, including those from Laos resulting from the Vietman war. Are they good citizens? For the most part, tho we've not exactly integrated in a community sense yet. Are we stressed because of them, adding to the housing and costs of social welfare? yes, I'd have to say, yes. I don't hear anyone complain and if we do its not because they're not hardworking people, but the costs of living here are substantially more than immigrant groups can pay now or anytime in the near future. We could have used better planning.

And they would all like to go home.


: While I was working in Boston, my ex-company (none / 0) (#36)
by suzieg on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:16:32 AM EST

brought over Romanians, put them up in basement apts in the North End and of course, to get around immigration laws, paid them in Romania.
These poor men were so miserable. They hated most things about the US. Were scandalized about the waste and the abundance in our food/super markets and thought that american life was too concentrated on work instead of family and were literally counting the days to their return home. When they were approached to come back on another assignment, all of them refused!

You ask (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by Roz on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:37:27 PM EST

Why should the Iraqis get special treatment? Because they provided aid to the U.S. in its unneccessary preemptive war that we entered under false pretenses?

Yes. Absolutely. We are directly responsible for the Iraqi refugee situation. We should be doing much more.

This seems like the right thing to do... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by OrangeFur on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:46:26 PM EST

Maybe we were wrong in going in, and we made a mess of the place, but that isn't these Iraqis' fault. They've taken great risks to help our efforts there, and we can't abandon them when we leave. Nor does doing this mean we can't give asylum to people from other countries.

I think the difference is that (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Anne on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:53:05 PM EST

we created the conditions that are making it hard for Iraqis to stay in their own country, and as such, I think we have some responsibility to create some path for them to come here if they can.

I wonder, though, how truly welcome they will feel in a country where it is not easy to be Middle Eastern.

thus far we've not helped their factories open (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Nettle on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:48:18 PM EST

It's truly been a policy of the State Dept. not to open up Iraqi industry again unless its privatized. Why is this not a priority? There are many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people who simply want to go home to jobs. If they want to reopen state factories exactly why do we have a say in that? Think about the conditions your govt. is already imposing, I'd say, before suggesting the solution is to have everyone relocated yet again.

We don't always know best. But we can stop what we're doing.


Worth reading some of the books (none / 0) (#27)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:41:17 PM EST

about the occupation, like "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" (one of the great book titles ever) for what the Iraq "reconstruction" was all about, and still is. The neocons were/are determined to make Iraq a great showpiece for their whacky economic theories, hence the refusal to allow any state-owned businesses to reopen. They also instituted the flat tax and wrote laws that essentially forbade any real business regulation. And then there was the 22-year-old kid who was hired to construct an Iraq stock exchange from scratch.

They were absolutely determined to make Iraq a showpiece for their ideology, rather than figuring out what would work best within the culture and expectations and actually put people back to work.

Feh.


: That's correct (none / 0) (#32)
by Steve M on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:00:53 AM EST

and I would highly recommend the same book, but I'd suggest that there's a little more to the story than the GOP's ideological privatization fetish.
The reality is that, for better or for worse, the sanctions regime we supported and enforced during the 90s completely gutted the Iraqi economy. These factories we want to reopen haven't been able to produce anything useful in years, because their equipment is outdated and shoddy. Saddam knew this, but he kept paying everyone's salaries even though they were producing nothing useful because he wanted to keep people content and employed.
So if we let people go back to work just because they want to, we're essentially reverting to the Saddam-era practices of having the nation do makework. Either the US commits to paying those salaries itself into perpetuity, or the Iraqi government does so even though it has no tax base and none of the Oil-for-Food revenues that made Saddam's scheme possible. It would be great to get people back to work if the result were going to be something resembling an actual economy, but in the substantial majority of cases that's not how it would actually work.
The thing about privatization is that no private company is going to acquire an Iraqi factory unless they believe they can make it profitable. To do so, they have to be willing to make the investments in infrastructure and modernization that those factories need, with the expectation that a profitable factory will pay back their investment over time. And a company that's willing to do this probably has the expertise to do so in a way that State Department employees do not.
So I actually think there's a lot of good sense behind privatization in this context, just not when it's done in a blindly ideological way like the GOP does.

blinded by Bush hatred (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by diogenes on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:17:08 PM EST

Only someone blinded by Bush hatred would imply that refugees needing asylum (as these are defined as being, at least) are somehow equal to economic refugees from Mexico or Haiti, however bad their situations. Countries throughout the world give precedence to asylum seekers over economic immigrants. Attack Bush for the hundred stupid things he's actually done.

: the Haitians (none / 0) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:18:39 PM EST

are seeking asylum. Follow the links I provided.

If the Surge Was Working (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by john horse on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:48:29 PM EST

then why are these Iraqis trying to leave Iraq? There are 2.2 million Iraqis who have fled Iraq. They are not allowed to work and live in terrible conditions in Syria and Jordan. If the surge was working, why aren't they going back?

Isn't that just ducky? (none / 0) (#1)
by oldpro on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:07:33 PM EST

Refugees? I think not. Not if the surge has been a big success.

Just what we need...big families from the middle east who can vote Republican out of gratitude to the Bushes.

so they should stay there- (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by kenosharick on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:13:22 PM EST

and be tortured or killed for helping Americans? They and their kids deserve to die in the streets because they needed work after we wrecked their country in the first place?


I thought part of a careful withdrawl (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by nycstray on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:30:39 PM EST

was to make sure Iraqis who worked with us had safety. If we are leaving and there are thousands that will be tortured or killed, should we really be leaving? That would suggest that they don't have control of their country/security wouldn't it?


: Careful withdrawl? (none / 0) (#42)
by kenosharick on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 10:14:13 AM EST

you are joking right? george bush screwed up that country for decades to come- it will be a disaster no matter how we leave.

I'd doubt that the refugees Bush has in mind (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Nettle on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:37:58 PM EST

are those who are in most danger - those without protection from violence, free from hunger or without an income.

I think this is a worthy topic and generalized identity politics not applicable.

For example, Iraqi prime minister Talabi's son married a high level State Dept. employee just after Bremer failed with the occupation 'coalition'. She had to have known boatloads about how thing were run, including what contracts went Talabi's peoples way. She ended up giving an "interview" (Bremer's people don't "testify") that suggested they were just overwhelmed and had no idea what happened with all the billions.

Talabi son and State Dept./Pentagon's Bremer Girl have a great new home in DC. Why doesn't everyone else?

I'd love to see a program that kept those who assisted with Bremer out and those who are truly refugees from the violence get a shot at it.


That's not even close to funny (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:11:48 PM EST

You thought I was making (none / 0) (#21)
by oldpro on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:06:11 PM EST

a joke?

Nope. Not.

And you're right...it's not funny at all. Not to me.

But Bush's brand of 'refugees' are more likely to match up politically with the Republicans than with any progressive antiwar Democrats...not unlike their Cuban-exile Floridian cousins these past 50 years.


Oldpro (none / 0) (#26)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:35:59 PM EST

I actually enjoy your cynicism on this, but I think we can relax about this one. They're never going to let enough Iraqis into the U.S. to have even the faintest effect on voting.


It might (none / 0) (#30)
by oldpro on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:20:04 AM EST

depend on where they settle...

No doubt you are correct...it's not about numbers, tho. This is a complex issue, nowhere near as simple as it appears on the surface.

If the talented, competent and educated leave Iraq, who will be left to run/develop their country? Nearly a third of the population has already left, according to some accounts, living as refugees in other countries in the region. Then, we cherrypick from those still there, employed by us...who will be left?


The problem seems to be (none / 0) (#37)
by wasabi on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:28:04 AM EST

The problem seems to be that those people who worked with us as are seen as collaboraters and rather than being allowed to run/develop their country, are being killed along with their families. They helped us, they need out. It is our moral obligation.


: That argument doesn't (none / 0) (#44)
by oldpro on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST

make sense to me.
By cooperating with the Americans, you'd have to include all the police we trained in Iraq...all the 'new Iraq army, etc.,' the government officials who run the various agencies we work with.....it is an endless stream with no cutoff point. Everyone who worked in the green zone?

If you're criticizing the fact that Iraqis (none / 0) (#16)
by Valhalla on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:25:52 PM EST

are having their immigration quotas raised (or whatever the procedure is, immigration-law-wise) while others who are equally needy are not, then I agree.

But if you're suggesting that we should be equally unfair and anti-immigrant against Iraqis as we are to other groups, then no. I really hate that line of reasoning -- that if one group is treated badly, then the way to even things out is to treat some other group badly too.

As for Bush, well we already knew he and his henchmen were big sh*ts on immigration.

: I hope you are not (none / 0) (#24)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST

asking me that... I think my ooint was clear that we should be allowing more visas to others besides the Iraqis and allowing those already here to stay.
TL has always been very pro-immigrants' rights.

Open your eyes, folks (none / 0) (#18)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:45:19 PM EST

It's a nice dream to think we can take in every Iraqi who claims they are going to be tortured or killed or whatever, or even a good number of them. The truth is we will take some, leave many, and that, in the end, this war will have completely and utterly destroyed both Iraq and the U.S. It is a deluded fantasy to think we can take in everyone, or that it's even possible to consider it good that we are. We have committed mass murder. We will go down in history as the most useless, wastefull, deadly generation in the history of mankind. There will be no money for anything in the future but our Roman Empire of troops around the globe. We have all screwed others and ourselves. We're a dead nation in so many ways. And we are going to let those most respsonsible get by without the slightest punishment. Bush and his cronies ought to be facing the same treatment Al Bashir of Sudan is. Period.

We have our heads so far in the sand we might as well be in Iraq.

on the other hand (none / 0) (#20)
by Nettle on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:05:47 PM EST

There is no reason those in exile now in Jordan, for example, couldn't be given greater aid so they don't have to move across the Atlantic to the great land of B and O. hmm. BO. Anyway, those counties now accomodating Iraqi refugees have rules and one is that boys over 14 or so can't hold jobs there, they might be violent, the policy goes. So many families are separated by these unfortunate rules. But would those families like to be together again in Iraq? Of course. Of course. Simple policy changes but for weird fears and US policies still ruling what industries of Iraq should and shouldn't be national or private. When people need to eat and find community again, why is that such a problem for Condi Rice?


: Condi Rice may well be (none / 0) (#28)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:46:25 PM EST

the most spectacularly incompetent major public official of all time in U.S. history.

What (none / 0) (#41)
by tek on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM EST

about the dream many have of letting everyone in Latin America move into the U. S.? Many Democrats actually believe this idea is realistic and workable--and through convoluted logic actually claim that it is the right of hispanics to come here. I'm German and I have relatives in Germany, but I don't have the idea that everyone in Germany should be allowed to come into the U. S. because they WANT to or that we should make German the official language of the U. S., even though the most predominant Old World ancestry in the United States is German.

IMHO, illegal hispanics are the new Religious Right. They see the possibility of aggressively pushing their wedge issue as a means of gaining control of the U. S. Like the paleocon christians, they will play on the civil rights and equality theme--even though they use illegal or unconstitutional actions to push it forward-- until they either have accomplished that or they are forced out.

Following the law isn't just a good idea--it's the law.


Strange (none / 0) (#31)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:02:54 AM EST

Over a year ago the US announced that it was going to increase the number of refugees allowed to 7000, up from 800 total since 2003.

May. 30, 2007
The 2 million-plus people -- the fastest growing refugee population in the world -- have left Iraq, but Washington has balked at allowing them into the United States for security reasons.
Since the war began in 2003, fewer than 800 Iraqi refugees have been admitted, angering critics who argued the United States is obligated to assist many more, particularly those whose work for American agencies or contractors placed them in danger.
Now, under enhanced screening measures aimed at weeding out potential terrorists -- announced this week by the Department of Homeland Security -- the administration plans to allow nearly 7,000 Iraqis to resettle in the United States by the end of September.

Well (none / 0) (#33)
by Steve M on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:07:53 AM EST

I think it only makes sense to give special treatment to those Iraqis who have helped us through translation services or otherwise, possibly saving American lives in the process, at the same time they risk their own lives by collaborating.

In the big picture, I think we should be encouraging refugees to settle in other countries in the region, rather than admitting all of them to the US. We can make this happen by increasing our foreign aid payments to the neighboring countries and otherwise helping them to cope with the flood of refugees.

The reason, quite simply, is that Iraq may never get built otherwise. Letting the best and brightest move to the US results in a "brain drain" that's fun when we do it to India, but not as fun when these talented people are desperately needed to get Iraq on its feet once again. If refugees settle in someplace like Jordan, it's entirely possible they'll return to Iraq once things are safe. That's much less likely to happen if they're all the way on the other side of the world.

I do think, though, that we have a moral obligation, and I suspect that other countries aren't going to be very excited about taking in Iraqi refugess unless they see that we, too, are committed to taking in a certain number. So I think this policy probably makes sense on a number of levels, but overall I think the top goal should be encouraging resettlement of Iraqis in the wider Middle East rather than here.

Jeralyn, Honestly... (none / 0) (#38)
by bmc on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:42:34 AM EST

It's distressing to think you are making such an argument. It's not "favoratism" at all. It's that Iraqis who have helped US troops in Iraq are under a constant death threat from Al-Qaeda. Ordinary Iraqis who have worked in the green zone cannot allow anyone to know they work there. They have to be secreted in and out, and they are in desperate danger. Have a little compassion for ordinary Iraqis, who, up until now, have had no help from the US at all, and in fact, have been BETRAYED by Bush.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer

If (none / 0) (#40)
by tek on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:22:59 AM EST

you knew history, you'd know that whenever we invade a third-world country, at the end we bring millions of their people to our country--it's a guilt thing. And it's probably some kind of promise our government made to their leaders, i. e., Tricky Dick and Vietnam.

We have no guilt over the millions of illegal hispanics living here (and it's not 12 million, it's 30 million at last count) because they invaded our country.

What exactly is your case for people premeditatively entering the country illegally to get legal citizenship above immigrants?

They're getting "special treatment" (none / 0) (#43)
by Steve Davis on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 10:14:35 AM EST

because they've spent the last 6 years being loyal to this country at great personal risk to themselves and their families. Wading across the Rio Grande is not something that gets you to the front of the line. Putting your life on the line for a policy--however misguided--of my country's goverment is.

Who Are These People? (none / 0) (#45)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:23:02 PM EST

Given that they are a less than .25% of the refugee population, and they cannot return to Iraq without being killed by the people we liberated, who are we talking about.

Snitches, war criminals, traitors and the like.

If we were attacked and occupied by a foreign country would the Americans that aided the occupiers be the same group of slime we are talking about?