Tag: United States of America

U.S. Sanctions Cuban President and Others for Alleged Participation in Serious Human Rights Violations 

On July 11,  the U.S. State Department announced sanctions against Cuba/s President (Miguel Diaz-Canel) and members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and Ministry of the Interior (Alvaro Lopez Miera and Lazaro Alberto Alvarez Casas and members of their families) for alleged participation in serious human rights violations associated with the popular demonstrations on July 11 and 12, 2021.[1]

A senior State Department official said, “The United States will never forget the tenacity of the Cuban people four years ago in demanding freedom and a future free from tyranny . The Trump Administration remains steadfast in its commitment to holding the Cuban regime accountable for its repressive actions and rampant acts of corruption.”

The U.S. also updated the list of sanctioned Cuban regime properties with which U.S. citizens and companies are prohibited from doing business, including 11 hotels (the Grand Aston La Habana; the Hotel Sevilla Affiliated by Melia; the Iberostar Selection La Habana; the INNSiDE Habana Catedral; the Varadero Sol Caribe and the Grand Aston Varadero Beach Resort, both in Cuba’s main beach resort; the Ocean Casa del Mar and the Roc Lagunas del Mar, both on Cayo Santa María; the Meliá Trinidad Península, on María Aguilar Beach in Santi Spíritus; and the Meliá Costa Rey, on Cayo Coco).

Secretary of State Marco Rubio marked this development with the following statement:

  • “Four years ago, thousands of Cubans peacefully took to the streets to demand a future free from tyranny.  The Cuban regime responded with violence and repression, unjustly detaining thousands, including over 700 who are still imprisoned and subjected to torture or abuse.”
  • “Today, the Department of State is taking steps to implement President Trump’s strengthened Cuba policy outlined in National Security Presidential Memorandum
  • From June 30, 2025.  In solidarity with the Cuban people and the island’s political prisoners, the United States is designating key regime leaders under Section 7031(c) for their involvement in gross violations of human rights.  We are also taking steps to impose visa restrictions on numerous Cuban judicial and prison officials responsible for, or complicit in, the unjust detention and torture of July 2021 protestors.”
  • “In addition, the Department is updating the Cuba Restricted List and the Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List to include 11 regime-linked properties, including the new 42-story “Torre K” hotel, to prevent U.S. funds from reaching the island’s corrupt repressors.”
  • “The U.S. will continue to stand for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Cuba, and make clear no illegitimate, dictatorial regimes are welcome in our hemisphere.”

Also on July 11, 2025, President Diaz-Canel from New York City responded with disdain and irony. “What bothers the US about Cuba is true independence, that transnational corporations don’t govern here, that we have free healthcare and education, that we don’t ask permission to condemn crimes like those committed by Israel and the US against the Palestinians.” His wife, Lis Cuesta, added similar words from Havana. [Lis Cuesta responds with disdain to US sanctions on Diaz-Canel’s “mango”: “They’re late.” Diario de Cuba (July 13, 2025).]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1]   The US sanctions Miguel Diaz-Canel, the ministers of the Armed Forces (FAR) and the Ministry of the Interior (MININT), and their families, Diario de Cuba (July 11, 2025) https://diariodecuba.com/cuba/1752270248_61968.html

 

Justice for the Cuban People on the Fourth Anniversary of the July 11 Protests, State Department (July 11, 2025) https://www.state.gov/releases/2025/07/justice-for-the-cuban-people-on-the-fourth-anniversary-of-the-july-11-protests/

 

State of Minnesota Has Declining Number of Births 

In 2023 the State of Minnesota had 61,715 children born in the state. This was a decline from the peak of 73,735 births in 2007. “The pattern of declining births is consistent across racial and ethnic groups, and it’s visible everywhere from the state’s urban core to its rural corners.”[1]

“More women [in the state] are also choosing not to get pregnant, at least for now, because they are anxious about costs, access to child care, and the political and environmental futures in which they would raise children, said Kathrine Simon, an Allina Health midwife. Moreover, “births among Minnesotans (women] 15 to 19 have fallen 33% since 2016 — a hard-won outcome following public health campaigns to convince teens that unplanned pregnancies can hurt their futures. But births also are declining among women 20 to 34, despite a generational uptick in young adults in their childbearing years.”

Over the next decade, this “decline will accelerate . . . when millennials exit that age range and the smaller Generation Z enters it, said Susan Brower, Minnesota’s state demographer. “That’s going to have kind of echo effects into the future.”

This decline “has already had an impact, forcing some small hospitals to close their delivery units, and will eventually hit Minnesota in its pocketbook,” Brower said.

“Over time, fewer children will result in fewer workers — from doctors to farmers to bankers to builders. That will mean fewer people making Target runs, buying Vikings tickets and paying taxes to keep up Minnesota’s infrastructure. . . . Eventually, and it’s already happening, we won’t be able to find people to do some of these essential services … to keep our economy and our society going.”

“Eventually, and it’s already happening, we won’t be able to find people to do some of these essential services … to keep our economy and our society going.”

“International immigration has sustained growth in Minnesota’s population and employment base for decades. The Hmong population that started with refugees fleeing Southeast Asia in the late 20th century has tripled in Minnesota since 2000. If not for immigrants who started new families in Minnesota, the state’s decline in births would be sharper, Brower said.”

Conclusion

This blog already has commented on the aging and declining population in the U.S. and many other countries in the world and the many problems that creates for those countries. Encouraging the immigration of people from other countries, including medical doctors and other medical personnel, is one way to counter these negative effects. [2]

===========================

[1] Olson, Reversing Minnesota’s declining  birthrate is costly—and controversial, StarTribune (Nov. 9, 2024).

[2] E.g., Support for Immigration from Nicholas Eberstadt and George Will, dwkcommentaries.com. (Oct.23, 2024).

“Economist” Magazine Also Predicts Lower World Population

Last month this blogger was surprised to learn about forecasted declines in world population and the resulting challenges of coping with such changes.[1] And earlier this week this blogger was also surprised to discover that due to the aging and forecasted retirement of many U.S. primary- care physicians, the U.S. will need to recruit foreign physicians to move to the U.S. and practice here and hence U.S. laws will have to be amended and supplemented to facilitate such transfers.[2]

This discussion has been joined by The Economist from London with an editorial and an article about the global challenge of low birth rates and the resulting aging and declining population around the world.

The Editorial[3]

Here is the Editorial’s headline: “Cash for kids—Baby-boosting policies won’t work. Economies must adapt to baby busts instead.” Here are its points:

  • “As birth rates plunge, many politicians want to pour money into policies that might lead women to have more babies. . . . Yet all these attempts are likely to fail, because they are built on a misapprehension.”
  • “Governments’ concern is understandable. Fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere , and the rich world faces a severe shortage of babies. . . . Every rich country except Israel has a fertility rate beneath the replacement rate of 2.1 at which a population is stable without immigration. . . . They will bring profound social and economic change.”
  • “Ageing and shrinking societies will probably lose dynamism and military might. They will certainly face a budgetary nightmare, as taxpayers struggle to finance the pensions and health care of legions of oldies.”
  • “[G]overnments are wrong to think it is within their power to boost fertility rates. . . [S]uch policies are founded on a false diagnosis of what has so fared caused demographic decline.. . . [T]hey could cost more than the problems they are designed to solve.”
  • “The bulk of the decline in the fertility rate in rich countries is among the younger, poorer women who are delaying when they start to have children, and who therefore have fewer overall. . . . [But] focusing [pronatal policies on this group] would be bad for them and for society.”
  • “High-skilled immigration can plug fiscal gaps. But not indefinitely, given that fertility is falling globally. . . Welfare states will need rethinking: older people will have to work later in life. . . . the invention and adoption of new technologies will need to be encouraged. . . . New household technologies may help parents. . . . Baby-boosting policies . . . are a costly and socially retrograde mistake.”

The Article[4]

 The Economist article says, “The world faces a shortage of babies. Among rich countries, only Israel is having enough babies to stop its population from shrinking, and in most places birth rates are falling . . . . As a consequence, the great and the good are growingly worried.”

Hence, “almost every rich country is thus considering increasing its pro-natal efforts, as are many middle-income ones.” However, pro-natal policies backed by government subsidies to parents have not been successful in boosting the number of births. “Attempting to encourage middle-class women to have more children is therefore unlikely to be successful. . . . Younger and working-class women probably offer policymakers the best chance of higher birth rates. Indeed, some programs are now beginning to explicitly target them.”

However, “the financial benefits of pro-natal policies aimed at working-class women would probably be overwhelmed by their costs.”

Conclusion

Are there any errors in the preceding analyses and conclusions? How do we all cope with this situation? Have any other publications discussed these issues?

=====================

[1] Will the World’s Population Cease To Expand?, dwkcommentaries.com (May 16, 2024).

[2] Foreign Physicians Needed To Solve U.S. Doctor Shortage, dwkcommentaries.com (June 1, 2024).

[3] Editorial, Cash for kids. Baby-boosting policies won’t work. Economies must adept to baby busts instead,The Economist at 9 (May 25, 2024).

[4] The pro-natalist turn: Putting a price on them, The Economist at 60 (May 25, 2024).

Cuban Government’s Reactions to New U.S. Regulations for Cuban Private Enterprise   

On May 28, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a formal Statement about the new U.S. regulations and then held a separate press conference on that topic. Later Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel made a statement on that subject.

Cuba Ministry of Foreign Affairs Statement[1]

  • “On May 28, the Government of the United States finally announced a group of measures aimed at implementing the policy announced on May 16, 2022. The purpose of this step, according to the text published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), is to support the private sector in Cuba.”
  • “These measures are limited in scope and do not target the essence of the blockade against Cuba nor the additional sanctions that make up the maximum pressure policy. Once again, this US government decision relies on its own distorted view of the Cuban reality, for it intends to artificially separate the private sector from the public sector, when they are both part of Cuba’s entrepreneurial system and the Cuban society as a whole.”
  • “With this announcement, the US government intends to address only one sector of our population. The coercive measure that most affect Cuba’s economy and public services and severely harm the wellbeing of our population are neither eradicated nor modified.”
  • “If these measures are implemented, the United States would seek to give advantage to the Cuban private sector, which was lawfully established and has been able to develop thanks to the measures taken, as a sovereign act, by the Cuban government in consultation with the Cuban people.”
  • “So has occurred with the access to the Internet, which was established and expanded by Cuba, despite the obstacles resulting from the blockade and the restrictions imposed to prevent free access to hundreds of tools and websites.”
  • “The Government of the United States has been explicit in its intention to use this sector for political purposes against the Revolution, in the interest of its change of regime policy.”
  • “Even if these measures were about a whimsical selectivity, both the private and the public sector will continue to suffer from the consequences of the blockade and the absurd inclusion of Cuba in the list of States that allegedly sponsor terrorism.”
  • “The coercive measures that are part of the economic blockade will remain in force, with their cruel impact on the entire Cuban population.”
  • “Obviously, the United States is ratifying its willingness to punish Cuba’s state sector, knowing that this is the one that offers essential services such as education, health, culture, sports and others to all Cubans, including the private sector; and that it is the guarantee of social justice and equity among all citizens. That is the reason why the US government recently adopted measures aimed at persecuting Cuba’s international medical cooperation. Several published documents have revealed that the US remains determined to depriving us from our revenues and destabilizing the country with the political purpose of dominating our nation.”
  • “The Cuban government will analyze these measures, and if they do not infringe upon our national legislation, and they are in fact an openness that would benefit the Cuban people, even if only one sector, it will not impede its implementation.”

Cuban Press Conference About New Regulations[2]

On May 28, Johana Tablada, the deputy director general of the United States at the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, held a press conference regarding the new U.S. regulations about the Cuban private enterprise sector.

She said they “do not touch the body of the [U.S. embargo] blockade nor do they modify the extreme measures and regulations applied by the Trump and Biden governments in recent years. “once again, the United States Government tries to adapt its actions not to the reality of Cuba, but to a fiction that has been built on the reality of Cuba. ”

She stressed that the US Administration tries to separate the Cuban private sector from the public sector through its announcements and strategies and ignores that both sectors make up the fabric of the Cuban business system and society as a whole. This U.S. effort is about privileging a private sector that does not owe anything to the United States.

She also said Cuba will study these measures and, if they mean a real opening and are not just a political announcement, the [Cuban] Government will not put brakes on their implementation. But since Cuba is included in the list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism, it is very difficult for the measures announced this Tuesday to be applied in their full scope.

President Diaz-Canel’s Statement[3]

On May 29, Diaz-Canel said, the US measures are “limited, restrictive and do not touch the fundamental body of the blockade against our country, nor the other sanctions of its maximum pressure policy.”

“The intention to direct them only to a segment of our people shows their historical intention to fracture unity among Cubans.”

“The concern for the development of the non-state sector of our economy is not genuine.”

“They do not eliminate or change the coercive measures that most affect the Cuban economy and public services, thereby severely damaging the well-being of our entire population today.”

” We will continue to promote the increasing integration of all our economic actors, which today are, together, a cornerstone for our development and progrss towards the well-being of all our people.”

Comments

Both the U.S. and Cuba agree that the new Treasury Department regulations leave unchanged the U.S. embargo (blockade) of the island and the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. Cuba, of course, wants those measures eliminated while the U.S. merely assumed that they would continue. As a U.S. citizen, this blogger wants to see them eliminated and suggests that the U.S. use this opportunity to engage Cuba in discussions about doing just that while remembering that  President Obama had discontinued the terrorism designation.[4]

The U.S. and Cuba also could have discussions about how to encourage the best operations of the latter’s new private enterprise sector. Given the horrendous current status of the Cuban economy, Cuba should welcome such discussions and be open to significant changes on those issues.

========================

[1] Statement of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, There is only one Cuba (May 29, 2024); Cuban Foreign Minister affirms that measures announced by the US are limited, Granma (May 29, 2024).

[2] Minrex: The new US regulations continue to be limited and do not touch the body of the blockade, CubaDebate (May 28, 2024).

[3] Diaz-Canel, The integration of all economic actors will be increasingly greater, Granma (May 30, 2024); US measures for MSMEs ‘respond to a subversive design’, says Diaz-Canel, Diario de Cuba (Mau 29, 2024).

[4 ]President Obama Rescinds U.S. Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” dwkcommentaries.com (April 15, 2015); U.S. Rescinds Designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” dwkcommentaries.com (May 29. 2015),

U.S. and Cuba Hold New Immigration Talks  

On April 16, 2024, the U. S. and Cuba held another round of immigration dialogue. [1]

The U.S. statement about the dialogue was very noncommittal. It said the following: “So these were bilateral discussions between the United States and Cuba. They are bilateral discussions on migration that take place biannually, twice a year. They reflect the commitment by the United States to regularly review the implementation of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords, which date back to 1984. Ensuring safe, orderly, humane, and regular migration between Cuba and the United States remains a primary interest of the United States, consistent with our interest in fostering family reunification and promoting greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.”

The Cuban commentary on this dialogue was more confrontive. It said before the meeting, “that it will insist that the United States ease the sanctions it blames for the migratory exodus from the island and end the ‘special treatment’ for Cubans who enter its territory illegally.”

The deputy director of American Affiars at Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Johanna Tablada de le Torre, said before the meeting. ”The [U.S.] blockade is what weighs most on the bilateral immigration situation.” Cuba blames U.S. for sanctions that are strangling the Cuban economy and the U.S.’ Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 granting “Cubans special entry rights and support upon arrival, for encouraging [Cuban] . . . young people to emigrate.” The U.S., on the other hand, said this migration is due to “the lack of civil liberties and human rights in Cuba . . . combined with a state-dominated economy.”

Cuba also accused the U.S. “of using federal funds to finance the main media and digital platforms that, according to the [Cuban] regime, are those that ‘stimulate irregular emigration.’ [Cuba] also accused [U.S.] senior government officials of participating in what were described as “communication operations of discredit and aggression.”

===========================

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, Department Press Briefing, April 16, 2024; Havana insists that Washington ease sanctions, which it blames for the migratory exodus, Diario de Cuba (April 14, 2024).

Russia Is Responsible for Havana Syndrome Attacks on U.S. Personnel

“The former head of the Pentagon’s investigation into the mysterious health incidents known as Havana Syndrome told the CBS investigation show 60 Minutes he believes Russia was behind them and was attacking U.S. officials abroad and at home.”[1]

This television show, in partnership with The Insider (a Russian exile media outlet) and a German magazine (Der Spiegel), reported on new evidence connecting a possible domestic incident of Havana Syndrome to Russia and identified a Russian military intelligence unit, identified as 29155, as the possible culprit of some of the suspected attacks.

60 Minutes also reported that at last year’s NATO summit in Lithuania a senior Pentagon official suffered an “anomalous health incident” (the U.S. term for Havana Syndrome) that required medical care.

Greg Edgreen, who ran the investigation into Havana Syndrome for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency from 2021-23, said that as a result of the incidents, U.S. officers abroad have been “neutralized.” When asked by the show’s host if he thought the United States is being attacked, he answered, “My personal opinion, yes, by Russia” because there are “no barriers on what Moscow will do.”

“Sources told the [Miami] Herald that many of the officers injured were involved in work related to Russia or were stationed in places where Russian spies could work with ease, like Cuba, China, Vietnam and most of Europe. Some incidents in Hanoi, Bogota, London and India happened ahead of or during the visits by senior U.S. officials.

This blog previously has published posts about the Havana Syndrome.[2]

==============================

[1] Torres, Russia is behind Havana Syndrome, attacks on U.S., former lead Pentagon investigator says, Miami Herald (April 1, 2024); Russia would be behind the ‘Havana Syndrome’, according to an investigation, Diario de Cuba (April 1, 2024), 

[2] Search for posts about HAVANA SYNDROME, dwkcommentaries.com.

Once Again, U.N. General Assembly Condemns U.S. Embargo of Cuba

On November 2, 2023, the U.N. General Assembly again condemned for the 31st time, the U.S. embargo of Cuba. This time the vote was 187-2 with one abstention. The negative votes were cast by the U.S. and Israel; the abstention by Ukraine. Three other countries did not vote on the resolution: Somalia, Venezuela and Moldova.[1]

U.S. Deputy Ambassador Paul Flambee, after the vote, told the Assembly that the United States “stands resolutely with the Cuban people. We strongly support their pursuit of a future with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” He added the following:

  • “Approximately 1,000 political prisoners remain behind bars in Cuba – more than at any point in Cuba’s recent history. Nearly 700 of those detentions owe to the historic July 11, 2021, protests during which members of civil society including human rights defenders, as well as minors of age, exercise their freedom of expression and right of peaceful assembly. We share the Cuban people’s dream of democracy in Cuba and join international partners in calling for the Cuban government to immediately release all those unjustly detained.”
  • “Despite Cuba’s membership in the UN Human Rights Council, the Cuban government has delayed responding to requests to send independent experts to Cuba, who would help advance respect for human rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or belief, and the freedom to assemble peacefully. Some of these requests have remained pending for 10 years.”
  • “Sanctions are one set of tools in our broader effort toward Cuba to advance democracy and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.”
  • “We recognize the challenges the Cuban people face. That is why U.S. sanctions include exemptions and authorizations relating to the exports of food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods to Cuba.” In fact, the “United States remains a significant source of humanitarian goods to the Cuban people and one of Cuba’s principal trading partners. In 2002* alone, U.S. companies exported over $295 million worth of agricultural goods to Cuba, including food, to help meet the needs of the Cuban people.”

==============================

[1] Lederer. UN votes overwhelmingly to condemn US economic embargo on Cuba for 31st year and urge its lifting, Wash. Post (Oct. 2, 2023); The UN condemns the US embargo against Havana with 187 votes in favor, Diario de Cuba (Oct. 2, 2023); Explanation of Vote After the Vote on a UN General Assembly Resolution on the Cuba Embargo, U.S. Mission to the U.N. (Nov. 2, 2023). This blog has reported on some of the prior approvals  of such resolutions by the General Assembly.  (See, e.g., U.N. General Assembly Again Condemns U.S. Embargo (Blockade) of Cuba, dwkcommentaroes.com (Nov, 8, 2002).)

Cuba Reports 1.5 Million Tourists Have Visited the Island So Far This Year

According to Granma, the official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, during the first seven months of 2023, Cuba had close to 1.5 million foreign visitors, which is 178.4% more than in same period last year and confirms the gradual recovery of this important sector of the Cuban economy.

These tourists mainly come from Canada (630,041), the United States (99,012), Russia (87,509), Spain (48,762), Germany (41,878) and France (36,549), all with year-on-year increases of between 115 and 240%, respectively. In addition, 210,019 Cubans who reside abroad visited their homeland.

Cuba still has the objective of reaching 3.5 million international tourists this year.

======================

One and a half million foreigners visited Cuba until the end of July, Granma (Aug. 26, 2023).

 

 

 

 

U.S. and Cuba Resume Law Enforcement Dialogue   

On January 18-19, 2023, the United States and Cuba in Havana resumed their Law Enforcement Dialogue, which last operated, 2015-18 during President Obama’s efforts to re-establish a more peaceful and collaborative relationship between the two countries.[1]

The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice co-chaired the dialogue for the United States.  The U.S. delegation included representatives from the Department of State’s Bureaus of Western Hemisphere Affairs and Office of the Legal Adviser; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Coast Guard; and the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs, and Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Officials from the U.S. Embassy in Havana also participated.

According to the State Department, this “type of dialogue enhances the national security of the United States through improved international law enforcement coordination, which enables the United States to better protect U.S. citizens and bring transnational criminals to justice. These dialogues strengthen the United States’ ability to combat criminal actors by increasing cooperation on a range of law enforcement matters, including human trafficking, narcotics, and other criminal cases.  Enhanced law enforcement coordination is in the best interests of the United States and the Cuban people.  This dialogue does not impact the administration’s continued focus on critical human rights issues in Cuba, which is always central to our engagement.”

The Cuban Foreign Ministry said that the Dialogue was held on January 18 and 19 and that they discussed “cooperation in the fight against scourges that threaten the security of both countries, such as terrorism, smuggling of migrants and immigration fraud, among others.” The Cuban Ministry added that their delegation transferred “information and proposals for cooperation . . . on the activities of persons based in the United States, identified as being linked to terrorism, illegal trafficking of persons and other illicit activities.”  Cuba also said the two countries “agreed to continue this dialogue and to hold other technical meetings between the law enforcement agencies of the two countries in order to materialize bilateral cooperation.”[2]

===================================

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, United States and Cuba Resume Law Enforcement Dialogue (Jan. 19, 2023); US Sending Delegation to Cuba to Restart Talks on Law Enforcement, VA (Jan. 12, 2023); See posts listed in the following: sections of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Cuba [as of 5/4/20]: U.S. (Obama) and Cuba Relations (Normalization, 2014; U.S. (Obama) and Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2015;U.S. (Obama) and Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2016; U.S. (Obama) and Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2017.

[2] Cuba Foreign Ministry, Cuba and the United States discuss terrorism and migration, (Jan. 20, 2023).

 

U.S. Procedures for Resettlement of Ukrainians

“On April 21, 2022, President Biden announced Uniting for Ukraine, a new streamlined process to provide Ukrainian citizens who have fled Russia’s unprovoked war of aggression opportunities to come to the United States. This represents a key step toward fulfilling the President’s commitment to welcome Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

“Uniting for Ukraine builds on the robust humanitarian assistance the U.S. government is providing as we complement the generosity of countries throughout Europe that are hosting millions of Ukrainian citizens and others who have been displaced.”

To that end, on or about April 21, 2022, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USC&IS) “announced a key step toward fulfilling President Biden’s commitment to welcome Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion. Uniting for Ukraine provides a pathway for Ukrainian citizens and their immediate family members who are outside the United States to come to the United States and stay temporarily in a 2 year period of parole. Ukrainians participating in Uniting for Ukraine must have a supporter in the United States who agrees to provide them with financial support for the duration of their stay in the United States.”[1]

Financial Supporter[2]

“The first step in the Uniting for Ukraine process is for the U.S.-based supporter to file a Form I-134, Declaration of Financial Support, with USCIS. The U.S. government will then vet the supporter to ensure that they are able to financially support the individual whom they agree to support.”

The qualifications for such a supporter is “An individual who holds lawful status in the United States or is a parolee or beneficiary of deferred action or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) who has passed security and background vetting and demonstrated sufficient financial resources to receive, maintain, and supports the individuals whom they commit to support for the duration of their stay in the United States.”

Eligible Ukrainians[3]

Beneficiaries of such support are those who meet the following requirements:

  • “Resided in Ukraine immediately prior to the Russian invasion (until February 11, 2022) and were displaced as a result of the invasion;”
  • “Are a Ukrainian citizen and possess a valid Ukrainian passport (or are a child included on a parent’s passport), or are a non-Ukrainian immediate family member of a Ukrainian citizen who is applying through Uniting for Ukraine;”
  • “Have a supporter who filed a Form I-134, Declaration of Financial Support, on their behalf that has been confirmed as sufficient by USCIS;”
  • “Complete vaccinations and other public health requirements,” and;
  • “Clear biometric and biographic screening and vetting security checks.”
  • “Immediate family members” in this process include: “the spouse or common-law partner of a Ukrainian citizen; and their unmarried children under the age of 21. NOTE: If a child is under 18, they must be traveling with a parent or legal guardian in order to use this process.”

Advocates for This Program[4]

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, and his wife are sponsors of three Ukrainians (a husband and wife and their 2-year old daughter) , who arrived in the U.S. less than five weeks after the U.S. government had approved the Somins’ supporter papers. Somin and his wife learned of this new U.S. government program through Welcome Connect, a website that matches potential U.S.sponsors with Ukrainian refugees. As a result, Somin has become a strong advocate for this program.

He says that since April of 2022, at least 94,000 Ukrainians have entered the U.S. under this program. In contrast, the regular U.S. program for admission of refugees is “slow and burdensome” and admitted only 25,400 for all of fiscal 2022.

Nevertheless, Somin sees “two major shortcomings:”

  • “first, the residency and work permits last only two years. Experience shows that many refugees need permanent homes, not just temporary ones. Permanence also enables them to make greater economic and social contributions to our society.”
  • Second, the program is largely the result of executive discretion. If political winds shift and President Biden (or a successor) decides to terminate it, participants could be subject to deportation. Congress should pass legislation to permanently fix these flaws.”
  • Third, this program could be improved by further simplifying the paperwork. . . . Refugee-assistance charities should consider providing linguistic assistance to potential sponsors who don’t speak Russian or Ukrainian; they could potentially recruit volunteer interpreters from immigrant communities in the [U.S.]”

Observations

 This U.S. program for Ukrainians is praiseworthy, but ignores several caveats.

First, the Ukrainians are not “refugees,” as defined in international and U.S. law:  individuals who have been determined by government agencies to meet the legal requirements for such status: “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country  because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”(Emphasis added). [5]

U.N. organizations and the U.S. government have established legal procedures for determining whether an individual has proven that he or she meets these legal requirements for such status as a basis for asylum or other status. As a result, it takes longer to do that than it does for the simplified process for the Ukrainians. But now it takes much longer than it should due to huge demands for such relief and inadequate resources.

Second, the U.S.established a special program for Afghans who have fled their country and who come to the U.S. as evacuees (not refugees) with humanitarian parole or special immigrant visas of limited duration. This is similar to the new program for Ukrainians, and a bill (Afghan Adjustment Act) has been proposed to meet the special legal problems associated with this status. But as been discussed in this blog, that Afghan proposal failed to pass in the last Congress.[6]

============================

[1] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, President Biden to Announce Uniting with Ukraine, a New Streamlined Process to Welcome Ukrainians Fleeing Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine (April 21, 2022); U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Uniting for Ukraine (April 21, 2022);  U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services [USC&IS],  Uniting for Ukraine (April 21, 2022).

[2] Id.; Eligibility for Uniting with Ukraine.

[3] Id.

[4] Somin, We sponsored refugees under a new Biden program. The results were astonishing, Wash. Post (Jan. 3, 2023); Somin & El-Chidiac, Americans should be able to sponsor refugees tho can stay permanently, Wash. Post (July 18, 2022).

[5] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 137; 8 U.S.C. sec. 1101(a)(42);

[6] E.g., Congress Fails To Adopt Important Immigration Legislation, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec.  2022).