More On `Operation Iraqi Asylum`: Now They`re Invading Us!
As the war in Iraq grinds
on, its little-known home-front counterpart—
Operation Iraqi Asylum—the granting of refugee
status and asylum to Iraqi nationals while
simultaneously liberating their homeland from oppression—still
remains in the shadows, untouched by the mainstream
posting the story on December 26, the VDARE.com-reading
denizens of the internet have risen to the challenge,
discussing the issue where corporate media has failed.
Author Lawrence Auster,
commenting on December 29 in the web journal,
A View From the Right, offers a “liberal
extravaganza” theory to explain the Iraqi refugee
mind boggles at even trying to phrase the questions that
arise at this. . . . [I]s it simply a matter of the left
hand not knowing what the right hand is doing? Or is it
more like a liberal extravaganza, in which we extend
every conceivable type of help—no matter how mutually
contradictory the different types of help may be—to the
same people at the same time, just to show how truly
liberal we are?
“As I said to an acquaintance
years ago, in the middle of a discussion about the
madness of the current culture, “How many perversities
can be squeezed into a single situation?” And he
answered: “America is about finding out!”
said. The rigged federal immigration
bureaucracy—perpetually programmed to hand-out
refugee status and
asylum to all comers—wouldn`t think for one minute
of suspending its give-away programs for Iraqis, even in
the face of yet another entirely contradictory and
unprecedented save-the-world operation.
with American boots on the ground in Iraq, the asylum
refugee machine rolls on.
VDARE.com reader sent me these comments on December 27:
“Bravo. I have been on this
case since January, 2005. Why did no one notice the
number of Iraqis showing up at
New Carrollton [Maryland] to "vote" in their
election? I contacted Homeland Security about this
because the Office of Overseas Migration only employed
six private security guards at the
Ramada Inn! Also, these Iraqis were making
video tapes and sending them back to their country.
This was reported on the front page of the
Washington Times, yet no one seemed to care.
When I called Homeland Security in Annapolis they knew
nothing about it.”
VDARE.com reader sounded off with these e-mailed
comments on December 26:
this in the face of the fact that our military has given
how many lives so that they can live in freedom in their
homeland? The numbers of Iraqis pending asylum or
granted asylum should be shown to the President and some
thus far failed to understand why Iraq has been
"liberated" yet Iraqis who entered—before or after the
fall of Saddam – continue to get granted asylum. Seems
that those here pre-2002 simply change their claim from
"I was afraid of Saddam" to something else, like "now I
Chaldean Christian and the Shiite majority will kill
me," or "well, Iraq still isn`t stable there, so I need
to stay in the U.S."
who entered after 2002 use the lack of stability
claim. And, guess what! Iraqis are STILL making it
across our borders!
Well done. This VDARE.com reader
hit the nail on the head in describing how would-be
refugees bypass legitimate refugee processing at U.S.
Consulates abroad, and instead use the
loopholes of the
EOIR to go straight into the United States on a red
Meanwhile, back in the fantasy world of
immigration lawyers, the only complaint about Iraqi
refugee and asylum claims is that they are not being
granted fast enough. Among the sob stories
posted on the unashamedly pro-alien
ILW.com is the Iraqi`s tale:
“Two Years and
Counting…Security Checks and Processing Delays Keep
Asylee and Spouse Separated.”
heartrending story of an Iraqi not being able to
relocate to the United States fast enough was taken
from the files of the Catholic Legal Immigration
Network, Inc. (CLINIC).”
B, a Christian Chaldean who fled Iraq and received
asylum in the United States, filed an I-730 Asylee
Relative Petition for her husband in March 2003. …
and her attorney were told that Mr. B`s case was
undergoing a "security screening" and that he just had
to wait. Despite additional inquiries to DHS, Mr. B`s
case continues to be pending and he and his wife remain
So according to the Treason Lobby`s
henchman in the immigration bar: send more Iraqis!
But why isn`t the alien`s husband
serving a tour of duty defending his homeland in
Iraqi National Guard, at least in the meantime?
Will someone also please remind the
“Catholic Legal Immigration Network” that family
reunification can work both ways, that is, outbound
as well as inbound into the United States.
hunch is that when the Iraqi breakup is complete,
sometime in 2007 or 2008, the U.S. will be inundated
with a wave of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish "asylum"
seekers from all over the ruined artifact of the British
Unfortunately, they will number in the tens if not
hundreds of thousands, and the [mainstream media] will
take the line that "we", i. e. the U.S., owes it to them
them asylum since we started the war.”
I also received comments from a
VDARE.com reader comparing “the
story about the Sudanese squatters in Egypt who were
forcibly removed from their camp, regrettably resulting
in the death of 26,” to the opportunists of
Operation Iraqi Asylum.
The VDARE.com reader wrote via
e-mail on January 3:
guess the search for a better life is only judged to be
successful if it meets the U.S., U.K. or
Canadian standard of living, and nothing less. Sigh.
I weep for the day the first government or U.N. official
capitulates to a mob`s demands of where to be resettled
or what situation merits refugee status.”
[VDARE.com Note: `Camp
of the Saints` author
Jean Raspail . . . call your office!]
get the feeling that refugee status for both politically
persecuted and economic migrants alike and resettlement
to one of these three industrialized nations is being
viewed as a virtual right by third world countries who
view with envy the refugee status and new lifestyles
granted to those who came before, to those who had the
good fortune to get a ticket to America. As evidenced in
this sad case, even resettlement to Egypt is not
enough." They don`t just want protection and the
basics, they want the
big score, a wealthy industrialized nation.”
The legally-justified treatment of
the Sudanese in Egypt underscores just how truly
undeserving are the uninvited Iraqi asylum applicants
now at U.S. ports of entry. But unlike the Sudanese,
they`ve made a successful end-run around the system.
According to a
news report on Sudanese repatriation:
“Under the agency`s [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]
detailed procedures and the standards of international
law, coming from a war-torn country is not enough to
guarantee someone refugee status. But even those who are
recognized as refugees are not guaranteed relocation to
the nation of their dreams. Some of the people in the
park do have refugee status but were relocated to Egypt.
"A refugee," [UNHCR Officer Ahmad] Mohsen said, "is
seeking legal protection. But a migrant is seeking
better living standards."
So if the United Nations can throw
Sudanese out of Egypt because “coming
from a war-torn country is not enough to guarantee
someone refugee status,”
why won`t the United
States start repatriating its own bogus Iraqi-born
“refugees” . . . starting with all able-bodied males
of military age?
America awaits the Bush