Tag: Venezuela

Another Documentation of the U.S. Need for Immigrants   

Just yesterday this blog published a lengthy post about how the problems in the U.S. asylum system were promoting increases in U.S. immigration that were benefiting the U.S. economy.[1]

Now the New York Times has published a lengthy article focusing on the positive impact of new immigrants to this country with its declining and aging population.[2]

The Example of the State of Maine

The State of Maine has the oldest population in the U.S. with a median age of 45.1. Its “native-born employees either leave the work force or barrel toward retirement.” This especially presents  a problem for the State’s annual $1 billion business of catching, cleaning and selling the lobsters off its Atlantic coast. As Ben Conniff, a founder of the State’s lobster processing plant (Luke’s Lobster), put it, “Folks in Maine are generally not looking for manufacturing work, especially in food manufacturing.”

In response, the founders of this company started Lift All Boats “to supplement and diversify the fast-aging lobster fishing industry. It aims to teach minorities and other industry outsiders how to lobster and how to work their way through the extensive and complex licensing process, and about half of the participants have been foreign-born.” And Maine’s state legislators are creating an Office of New Americans to attract and integrate immigrants into the work force.”

The Rest of the U.S.

“Nationally, even with the barriers that prevent some immigrants from being hired, the huge recent inflow has been helping to bolster job growth and speed up the economy. . . . The new supply of immigrants has allowed employers to hire at a rapid pace without overheating the labor market. And with more people earning and spending money, the economy has been insulated against the slowdown and even recession that many economists once saw as all but inevitable as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in 2022 and 2023.”

“Ernie Tedeschi, a research scholar at Yale Law School, estimates that the labor force would have decreased by about 1.2 million people without immigration from 2019 to the end of 2023 because of population aging, but that immigration has instead allowed it to grow by two million.” In the longer run, “economists think the immigration wave could also improve America’s labor force demographics . . . even as the native-born population ages, with a greater share of the population in retirement with each year.”

“In fact, immigration is poised to become increasingly critical to America’s demographics. By 2042, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, all American population growth will be due to immigration, as deaths cancel out births among native-born people. And largely because immigration has picked up so much, the C.B.O. thinks that the U.S. adult population will be 7.4 million people larger in 2033 than it had previously expected.”

“Immigration could help reduce the federal deficit by boosting growth and increasing the working-age tax base.”

However, “nobody knows how long today’s big immigration flows will last. Many are spurred by geopolitical instability, including economic crisis and crime in Venezuela, violence in Congo, and humanitarian crises across other parts of Africa and the Middle East.” This, as we in the U.S. know, has sparked a lot of political unrest over this development.

Nor does anyone know about the future course of the U.S. economy. If it slows, “fewer immigrants might want to come to the United States, and those who did might struggle to find work . . . [and] compete against American workers for jobs, particularly those with lower skill levels.” However, “recent economic research has suggested that immigrants mostly compete with one another for work, since they tend to work in different roles from those of native-born Americans.”

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

[1] Problems in U.S. Asylum System Help Promote Increases in U.S. Immigration, dwkcommentaries.com (April 11, 2024).

[2] Smialek, Immigrants in Maine Are Filling a Labor Gap. It May Be a Prelude for the U.S., N.Y. Times (April 12.2024).

Russia’s Top Security Official Meetings in Havana     

On February 27, 2024, Nikolai Patrushev, Russia’s to security official, met in Havana with Cuba’s retired general Raul Castro. Other Russians in attendance were officials from Russian spy agencies like the Federal Security Service and the Foreign Intelligence Service in addition to officials from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and other government agencies.[1]

Patrushev said Moscow is ready to provide “full, comprehensive support to our Latin American friends, including preventing interference in the internal affairs of countries friendly to us, discrediting their legitimate authorities, intimidating the population, and destabilizing the economy.”

According to a Russian newspaper, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, they discussed “issues of practical cooperation between Russia and Cuba in the field of security,” reinforcing views that despite being out of office, the 92-year old Cuban revolutionary leader is still making important military and political decisions.

This Russian official also met and discussed security and economic issues with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, who reportedly praised Putin’s recent interview with former Fox host Tucker Carlson, an hours-long exchange in which the Russian leader tried to provide historical justifications for his invasion of Ukraine. Afterwards Diaz-Canel said this exchange provided historical justifications for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

In a subsequent meeting sith officials from Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, Patrushev promised “comprehensive support” to Russian allies in Latin America against U.S. “interference.”

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

[1] Torres, Top Putin ally meets Castro, vows ‘comprehensive support’ to allies in Latin America, Miami Herald (Feb. 27, 2024).

 

 

 

Cuba’s Poor Ranking in the World Democracy Index

Each year the British magazine The Economist publishes its World Democracy Index. For 2023 Cuba ranked 135th our of 167 world-wide countries and 22nd out of 24 Latin American countries.[i]

The five principles taken into account for this analysis and ranking are: electoral process and pluralism; functioning of the Government; political participation; democratic political culture; and civil liberties. The countries are then grouped into four categories: full democracy, deficient democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.

World Ranking

Cuba was given the 135th ranking out of 167 countries.

“Norway remains the most democratic country,” a position it has occupied for 14 years” while “Afghanistan is at the bottom for the third consecutive year.

“Less than 8% of the world’s population live in full democracies” while “39.4% are under authoritarian rule.”

Latin America Ranking

Only two Latin American countries (Uruguay and Costa Rica) received the top rank of “full democracy.’ Cuba followed by Venezuela and Nicaragua were placed in the bottom category of “authoritarian regimes” while Haiti was assigned an even lower ranking of “country in state of collapse.”

On a population basis, “just over 1% of the region’s population lives in a full democracy, the majority (54%) live in a flawed democracy, 35% in a hybrid regime and 9% in an authoritarian regime.”

“Latin America fell by the most, and recorded its eighth consecutive drop. El Salvador, where Nayib Bukele ran for re-election as president in defiance of the constitution (and easily won [in early February]), was the worst performer in the region.”

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

[i]  Cuba ranks 135th in the 2023 World Democracy Index, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 19, 2024); Where democracy is most at risk, Economist (Feb. 14, 2024)

Two U.S. Congress Officials Object to O’Grady’s Defense of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism   

U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (Dem., Mass.) and U.S. Senator Peter Welch (Dem., VT) jointly voice their objection to Mary Anastasi O’Grady’s defense of the  U.S. designation of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism because, they argue, she presented no evidence for that action.[1]

Yes, McGovern and Welch say, “Cuban officials meet with counterparts in Russia and China, but so do American officials. Alliances with Russia and China, also cited as evidence of support for terrorism, would put half the world on the list. When it comes to spying, Cuba and other countries have had spies in the U.S.”

“Ms. O’Grady’s argument about Cuba’s support for Venezuela’s oppressive dictator might sound convincing, but Venezuela itself isn’t on the [terrorism] list. Cuba harbors some aging American fugitives, but none of them have been accused of international terrorism.”

“To be sure, there are [other] countries that belong on the list. [Two of them are North Korea and Syria.] North Korea threatens to launch nuclear weapons at us. Syria used chemical weapons on its own people and finances regional terrorists. Iran funds the rockets that rain down on Israel.”

“Cuba’s government is repressive; its economy is in shambles. If those were criteria for being on the list, it would be a mile long. It’s fine to criticize Cuba, but let’s be honest about who the real terrorists are. A policy of constructive engagement with Cuba might lead to more democracy. Wrongly labeling it as a sponsor of international terrorism only furthers a broken status quo.”

Conclusion

This blog has repeatedly and consistently argued that the U.S. designation of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism is unjustified. [2]

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

[1] Compare McGovern & Welch, Cuba Is No Sponsor of International Terrorism, W.S.J. (Jan. 31, 2024), wit O’Grady, Why Cuba Belongs on the Terrorism List. W.S.J. (Jan. 21, 2024),

[2] E.g., Cuba Still on List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 1, 2023); U.S. Senators and Representatives Demand Ending of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism (Jan. 12, 2024);COMMENT: Another Congressman Calls for Ending Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism (Jan. 13, 2024).

 

 

 

Honduras’ Role in Northward Migration of Foreigners

Between January 1 and December 10, 2023, 517,939 migrants entered Honduras on their northward journey to the U.S. They came from Venezuela (221,131), Haiti (89,344), Cuba (79,799), Ecuador (43,926), Columbia (12,271), China (10,911), Guinea (10,569) and more than 30 other countries (52,988).

Many of these migrants are welcomed in four Honduras Government Centers for Attention to Irregular Migrants (CAMI), where their biometric data is taken and they receive food and medical care.

According to the Honduras National Commissioner for Human Rights (CONADEH), these migrants suffer many abuses, mainly in the illegal charging of intercity transportation and abuses by police agents.

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

Migration crisis: Almost 80,000 Cubans have entered Honduras so far this year, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 16, 2023).

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).)

More Details on Cuba’s Fuel Crisis

Jorge Pinon, the principal researcher at the Energy Institute of the University of Texas, has provided the following additional details about Cuba’s current fuel crisis.[1]

“Cuba does not have money to buy [fuel] in international markets and the suppliers with which it had commitments [Venezuela, Mexico and Rosneft of Russia] are not fulfilling them.”

In June 2022 Russia announced an agreement for Rosneft annually to supply Cuba with 1.64 million tons of oil and derived products, and this May Rosneft delivered an estimated 800,000 barrels, but that flow has stopped. Rosneft apparently is waiting for a Cuba-Russia intergovernmental agreement to guarantee payment for the market value of these shipments because Rosneft does not want the Cuban debt with a Russian guaranty to appear in its financial reports.

The Mexican supplier (Pemex) over the last decade has decreased its crude oil production every year over the last decade and has the highest debt ($110.5 billion) of any major oil company. And the Mexican government if facing its largest fiscal deficit in more than three decades and is studying the possibility of selling Pemex.

Venezuela’s state-owned oil company (PDVSA) has had problems producing enough oil  for its own domestic needs, thus reducing what it can export. For this year (through August) it has exported 449 million barrels in fluctuating amounts to Cuba.

Cuba itself produces about 40,000 barrels of oil per day, but needs another 100,000 per day to meet demand, which Venezuela cannot itself provide. In addition, Cuba’s national electrical system suffers from lack of maintenance.

“The new Cuban energy crisis is so delicate that any adverse event on the island (the breakdown of a thermoelectric plant; a hurricane; a fire in a petrochemical facility) or abroad (increase in oil prices, a new trade war or armed confrontation) could complicate it to extremes.”

“Any way you look at it, any solution will take time and money. Havana has neither one nor the other. And it is clear that the [Cuban] Communist Party prefers to ask its governed to sacrifice themselves rather than begin to solve forever a problem that further compromises the future of the island and that of the group in power.”

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

[1] Reyes, The truth that the Government of Cuba will not tell about the new fuel crisis, Diario de Cuba (Sept. 29, 2023),

 

 

 

Increasing Migrant Crossings at U.S. Border Call for Legal Changes

This July more than 130,000 migrants were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border. The fastest growth in this immigration, with 40,000 of the total, was in the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, which comprises most of Arizona, which was the most since April 2008. U.S. authorities attribute this increase to smugglers now guiding migrants to the border across the most remote and harsh stretches of the Arizona desert between Yuma and Tucson to avoid detection. [1]

Crossing in desert areas in the summer can be deadly, with ground temperatures well exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit at times, officials say. Such extreme conditions have led to a spike in 911 calls.  Agents responding to such calls for help routinely find dozens or even hundreds of migrants in need of aid and trying to surrender to arriving border agents.

Cuba is experiencing growth in out-migration. Social-media advertisements on the island have recently increased offering door-to-door transportation to the U.S. through flights from Cuba to Nicaragua and ground travel across Central America and Mexico. Although new Biden policies require Cubans to have a U.S. citizen-sponsor for legal entry to the U.S., many Cubans do not have such sponsors and some officials say, “For ordinary Cubans, finding a sponsor who has money in the U.S. is Mission Impossible.”[2]

Another indication of this migrant pressure is the recent guilty plea by the owners of a Williamsburg, Virginia cleaning business who operated a “labor trafficking enterprise” that smuggled over 100 migrants from El Salvador, including minors, and forced them to work in U.S. under threats of violence and deportation.[3]

Recommended Changes

 Andrea R. Flores, who served as an immigration policy adviser in the Obama and Biden administrations, says, “Until Congress finds the political will to act, the president should use his authority to relieve pressure on our asylum system and give migrants the ability to legally work once they reach the United States.”[4] To that end, she recommends the following:

  • “While far from perfect, the Biden administration’s parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans could serve as a model for what is possible. This policy provides safer options to people who are unlikely to meet the legal requirements for asylum, but who still have urgent humanitarian reasons to flee their homes.”
  • The President should “use his authority to grant Temporary Protected Status to the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who lack work authorization, which would be a boon for immigrants and the communities that welcome them. A 2023 analysisby FWD.us, a bipartisan group founded by American business leaders that favors more humane immigration reform, found that T.P.S. holders contribute $22 billion in wages annually to the U.S. economy.”
  • “The administration should also act quickly to increase the number of appointments at ports of entry; add new countries eligible for parole; lift caps on countries with urgent resettlement needs, as it did for Ukraine; and invest resources in adjudicating asylum cases expeditiously.”

Noted commentator, Fareed Zakaria, points out the obvious: “America’s immigration system is broken.” [5]Therefore, he says the following: “The laws and rules around asylum must be fixed so that immigration authorities can focus on the small number of genuine asylum seekers while compelling the rest to seek other legal means of entry. At the same time, it’s important to note that the United States is facing a drastic shortfall of labor and must expand legal immigration in many areas for just that reason. We urgently need to attract the world’s best technically skilled people so that they can push forward the information and biotech revolutions that are transforming the economy and life itself. With unemployment rates around 50-year lows, it is obvious that we need more workers in many sectors of the economy, from agriculture to hospitality. If this is done in a legal and orderly manner, Americans will welcome the new workers.”

Therefore, he says Biden “should propose an immigration bill that is genuinely bipartisan and forces compromises from both sides. It would be one more strong dose of evidence that policy can triumph over populism.” Good luck on doing that.

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

[1] Perez & Caldwell, Migrant Crossings on the Rise Again at U.S. Border,W.S.J. (Aug. 12, 2023); Miroff & Sacchetti, Border arrests surged in July, a blow to Biden immigration plan, Wash. Post (Aug. 1, 2023).

[2] Perez & Caldwell, Migrant Crossings on the Rise Again at U.S. Border, W.S.J. (Aug. 12, 2023).

[3] Paul, Laundry company owners guilty of trafficking migrants, minors for labor, Wash. Post (Aug. 13, 2023).

[4] Flores, We Know What Doesn’t Work at the Border. Here’s a Better Solution, N.Y. Times (Aug. 10, 2023).

[5] Zakaria, Immigration can be fixed. So why aren’t we doing it?, Wash. Post (Aug. 11, 2023).

 

Biden Administration Announces Proposed Restrictions on Asylum Applications

On February 21, the Biden Administration announced a proposed rule that would  require rapid deportation of an immigrant at the U.S. border who had failed to request protection from another country while en route to the U.S. or who had not previously notified the U.S. via a mobile app of their plan to seek asylum in the U.S. or who had applied for the new U.S. humanitarian parole programs for certain countries (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela). This rule will take effect on May 11, with the expected termination that day of Title 42 that allowed the U.S. to swiftly expel migrants at the U.S. border.[1]

This announcement stated that the new rule would “incentivize the use of new and existing lawful processes and disincentivize dangerous border crossings, by placing a new condition on asylum eligibility for those who fail to do so. These steps are being taken in response to the unprecedented western hemispheric migration challenges – the greatest displacement of people since World War II – and the absence of congressional action to update a very broken, outdated immigration system.”

DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas stated, “We are a nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws. We are strengthening the availability of legal, orderly pathways for migrants to come to the United States, at the same time proposing new consequences on those who fail to use processes made available to them by the United States and its regional partners. As we have seen time and time again, individuals who are provided a safe, orderly, and lawful path to the United States are less likely to risk their lives traversing thousands of miles in the hands of ruthless smugglers, only to arrive at our southern border and face the legal consequences of unlawful entry.”

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland added the following: “The Department of Justice is responsible for administering the Nation’s immigration courts and ensuring that claims are adjudicated expeditiously, fairly, and consistent with due process. This proposed rule will establish temporary rules concerning asylum eligibility in those proceedings when the Title 42 order is lifted. We look forward to reviewing the public’s comments on this proposed rule.”

The Administration says that without this new rule, immigration at the U.S. border would “increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the … continued ability to safely, effectively and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law.”

Reactions to the New Rule[2]

“In a joint statement, Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.) and Alex Padilla (Calif.) called on the administration to drop the proposed rule. “We are deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to move forward with publishing this proposed rule, which only perpetuates the harmful myth that asylum seekers are a threat to this nation. In reality, they are pursuing a legal pathway in the United States.”

 A similar reaction came from leading Democratic House members (Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Pramila Jayapal). In their joint statement, they expressed “deep disappointment” with the newly proposed rule and stated, “The ability to seek asylum is a bedrock principle protected by federal law and should never be violated. We should not be restricting legal pathways to enter the United States, we should be expanding them.”

“Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said they applaud the expanded pathways for those four countries announced in January but question where that leaves migrants from other countries. She says it favors people with resources who can afford the necessary requirements of finding a financial sponsor and buying a plane ticket to the U.S. And some people are so at risk, they simply cannot wait in their country for a humanitarian parole slot. Critics have also highlighted technological problems with the app.”

“The Federation for American Immigration Reform said that the rule isn’t designed to halt migrants as much as make the process more orderly: “In other words, the real objective is not to end large-scale asylum abuse, but rather to get them through the next election cycle.”

Justice Action Center’s counsel, Jane Bentrott, said the proposed rule “would send asylum seekers back to danger, separate families, and cost lives, as human rights advocates have been asserting for weeks. It is in direct contravention of President Biden’s campaign promises to reverse Trump’s racist, xenophobic immigration policies, and give all folks seeking safety a fair shot at asylum.”

Lindsay Toczylowski, the executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center in California, criticized the inept operations of the government’s online system for scheduling an asylum application interview. “It’s almost like a lottery. You have to win a ticket to be able to seek protection in the U.S.”

An ACLU attorney, Lee Gelernt, who successfully challenged similar efforts by the Trump Administration, said that Biden’s new proposed rules had the same legal flaws as the Trump rules  and that the ACLU would sue to block the latest move.

Although this blogger has been a pro bono attorney for asylum applicants and more generally an advocate for strong U.S. laws and procedures for same and although he is sympathetic to the above criticisms of the new proposed rules, it must be acknowledged that there is nothing in the international treaty or U.S. statutes on asylum that requires the U.S. to provide asylum interviews at the border to undocumented immigrants. Moreover, this and related changes in U.S. asylum laws and procedures are counterbalanced by new procedures in U.S. law for asylum or parole applications in Central American countries for at least some of these immigrants (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela).

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

[1] DHS and DOJ Propose Rule to Incentivize Lawful Migration Processes, DHS (Feb. 21, 2023); Jordan, Biden Administration Announces New Border Crackdown, N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2023); Parti & Caldwell, Biden Administration Proposes New Limits on Asylum Seekers, W.S.J. (Feb. 21, 2023); Miroff, Asylum seekers who cross U.S. border illegally face new Biden rule, Wash. Post (Feb. 21, 2023); Santana, How Biden asylum rule affects immigration, compares to Trump, Wash. Post (Feb. 22, 2023).

[2] See n.1.

 

President Trump Announces Categories for U.S. Admission of Refugees for Fiscal 2021             

On September 30, the U.S. State Department announced that President Trump had reduced the U.S. quota for admission of refugees to 15,000 for Fiscal Year 2021 (October 1, 2020-September 30, 2021) that would be documented in a subsequent presidential determination.[1]

That Presidential Determination confirming the 15,000 limitation was issued on October 28 in the form of a memorandum to the Secretary of State. It also announced allocations “among refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States.”[2] Here are those allocations:

Number Category
5,000 Refugees who: have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion; or are within a category of aliens established under subsections (b) and (c) of section 599D of Title V, Public Law 101-167, as amended (the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments). [(i) “aliens who are or were nationals and residents of the Soviet Union and who share common characteristics that identify them as targets of persecution in the Soviet Union on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” including “nationals and residents of the Soviet Union and who are Jews or Evangelical Christians ” and (ii) “aliens who are or were nationals and residents of Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia and who share common characteristics that identify them as targets of persecution in such respective foreign state on such an account.
4,000 Refugees who are within a category of aliens listed in section 1243(a) of the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007, Title XII, Div. A, Public Law 110-181, as amended: “[1) Iraqis who were or are employed by the United States Government, in Iraq;(2) Iraqis who establish to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that they are or were employed in Iraq by–(A) a media or nongovernmental organization headquartered in the United States; or (B) an organization or entity closely associated with the United States mission in Iraq that has received United States Government funding through an official and documented contract, award, grant, or cooperative agreement; and 3) spouses, children, and parents whether or not  accompanying or following to join, and sons, daughters, and siblings of aliens described in paragraph (1), paragraph (2), or section 1244(b)(1); and(4) Iraqis who are members of a religious or minority community, have been identified by the Secretary of State, or the designee of the Secretary, as a persecuted group, and have close family members . . . in the United States.”
1,000 Refugees who are nationals or habitual residents of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras.
5,000 Other refugees in the following groups: those referred to the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) by a United States Embassy in any location; those who will be admitted through a Form I-730 following-to-join petition or who gain access to the USRAP for family reunification through the P-3 process; those currently located in Australia, Nauru, or Papua New Guinea who gain access to the USRAP pursuant to an arrangement between the United States and Australia; those who are nationals or habitual residents of Hong Kong, Venezuela, or Cuba; and those in the USRAP who were in “Ready for Departure” status as of September 30, 2019.
15,000 TOTAL

In addition, the President authorized the Secretary of State, subject to certain conditions, “to transfer unused admissions from a particular allocation above to one or more other allocations, if there is a need for greater admissions for the allocation to which the admissions will be transferred.”

The President, subject to certain conditions, also authorized the Secretary of State to consider “the following persons . . ., if otherwise qualified, . . . [as] refugees for the purpose of admission to the United States within their countries of nationality or habitual residence: a. persons in Cuba; b. persons in Eurasia and the Baltics; c. persons in Iraq; d. persons in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador; and e. in exceptional circumstances, persons identified by a United States Embassy in any location.”

The President specified “that persons from certain high-risk areas of terrorist presence or control, including Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, shall not be admitted as refugees, except those refugees of special humanitarian concern:  (1) who have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion; (2) were referred to the USRAP by a United States Embassy in any location; or (3) who will be admitted through a Form I-730 following-to-join petition or who gain access to the USRAP for family reunification through the P‑3 process.  The threat to United States national security and public safety posed by the admission of refugees from high-risk areas of terrorist presence or control is significant and cannot be fully mitigated at this time.”

Another specification by the President was “ for FY 2021, newly admitted refugees should be placed, to the maximum extent possible, in States and localities that have clearly expressed their willingness to receive refugees under the Department of State’s Reception and Placement Program.  Such cooperation ensures that refugees are resettled in communities that are eager and equipped to support their successful integration into American society and the labor force.”

Finally the President determined “hat assistance to or on behalf of persons applying for admission to the United States as part of the overseas refugee admissions program will contribute to the foreign policy interests of the United States, and I accordingly designate such persons for this purpose.”

Conclusion

 The principal objection to this presidential action is the overall limitation of resettled refugees to 15,000 in one year. The identification of the refugees in the above categories and their allocated numbers presumably are justified.

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

[1] U.S. Reduces Refugee Admissions to 15,000 for Fiscal 2021, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 2, 2020).

[2] White House, Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021 (Oct. 28, 2020).