Overview of President Trump's Immigration Executive Orders

INTRODUCTION

On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders on immigration law:

• Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States [PDF version]; and
• Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements [PDF version].

Additionally, President Trump is expected to issue a version the following executive order in the near future:

• Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals (draft) [PDF version].

In this article, we will provide an overview of the three executive orders. In the coming days, we will publish comprehensive articles on the provisions of each of these executive orders along with analysis of what they will mean for immigration policy going forward.

INTERIOR SECURITY

The first executive order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” provides a new set of civil enforcement priorities that appear to be significantly broader than those published by the Obama Administration in 2014 (although it does not repeal the Johnson Memorandum) [see article]. The Order also instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to endeavor to dramatically increase the number of officers in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The order includes provisions aimed at withholding certain grants from “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Finally, the order instructs the DHS and the Department of State (DOS) to implement the sanctions provided by section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) against countries that refuse to accept the return of their nationals.

BORDER SECURITY

The second executive order, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” focuses heavily on instructing the DHS to build a wall along the southern border. However, the President will ultimately need funding from Congress to complete this task. The order instructs DHS to increase the use of immigration detention for aliens in removal proceedings and those apprehended at the border to the extent permitted by law. Accordingly, it orders the DHS to construct new immigration detention facilities staffed with asylum officers. The order instructs the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to hire 5,000 new Border Patrol agents.

The order instructs the DHS to engage with State Governors and local officials for the purpose of entering into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA where such State and local officials can cooperate with the DHS in enforcing the federal immigration laws. It instructs the DHS to ensure that the parole and asylum provisions of the INA are not “illegally exploited” to prevent the removal of otherwise removable aliens. It focuses specifically on the expedited removal provisions. Finally, it instructs the DHS to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are properly processed and cared for when in DHS custody.

NATIONAL SECURITY

The third executive order, as drafted would, among other things, establish new protocols for vetting nationals from designated countries of concern, suspend the issuance of visas to individuals from certain countries of concern, suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, and cease all refugee processing and admittance of nationals from Syria until the President determines that adequate safeguards are in place. Upon resumption of the refugee program, the DOS and DHS are instructed to prioritize religious persecution claims made by religious minorities to the maximum extent provided by law. The draft also has the President lowering the refugee ceiling to 50,000 refugees for FY-2017. During the 120-day pause to the refugee program, the DOS and DHS may still admit individual refugees on a case-by-case basis when it is deemed to be in the national interest, or when the refugee claim is made by an individual on the basis of religious persecution provided that the individual is in a minority religion in his or her country of nationality. The President ordered the DOS to work with the Department of Defense (DOD) to produce a plan to create a safe zone around Syria for Syrian nationals fleeing violence.

The draft order calls for the “recision of exercise of authority relating to terrorism grounds of inadmissibility.” It instructs the DHS to expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system. It orders the DOS to immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program. Finally, it orders the DOS to review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements.

CONCLUSION

The three executive orders mix substantive changes to immigration policy with other immigration proposals that will require Congressional funding. Each of these orders includes provisions that represent shifts from the immigration policies of the Obama Administration toward stricter enforcement of the immigration laws. Several of the provisions are broadly worded and afford discretion to the DHS and the DOS, so it remains to be seen how they will ultimately be applied. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that President Trump is moving quickly to prioritize immigration enforcement and changes to the refugee program in his first day in office.

In the coming days, we will provide detailed articles on the content of each of these Executive Orders.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

President Trump Tweets That He Will Pick His SCOTUS Nominee on February 2

Update (Jan. 30, 2017): President Trump has moved the date to January 31, 2017, at 8:00 PM [see blog].

At 7:17 AM on January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump posted the following announcement on his personal Twitter account:

“I will be making my Supreme Court pick on Thursday of next week. Thank you!”

- President Donald Trump

Assuming that the President keeps the date, February 2, 2017, will mark the most important decision yet for his young administration. If confirmed, the individual who President Trump selects next Thursday will have a dramatic effect on United States law for years, if not decades, to come. Immigration law is no exception to this rule, as the Supreme Court often resolves critical issues related to immigration statutes and other criminal and administrative law cases that touch on immigration issues.

Although we do not know who the President will select, many outlets are reporting that he is down to the same three finalists:

• Judge Neil Gorsuch, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit;
• Judge Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and
• Judge William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Judges Gorsuch, Hardiman, and Pryor — all appointees of former President George W. Bush — have stellar reputations from their service on the federal bench. All three are considered reliable conservative judges, although there are key differences in their methodologies and their legal views on certain issues. If President Trump has in fact narrowed his list of 21 Supreme Court prospects to these three individuals, we can be assured that the next Supreme Court justice will be well-qualified to faithfully interpret the law going forward.

Many are looking for clues as to which of these individuals is the “frontrunner,” but fortunately our questions will be answered soon enough.[1] When the President makes his choice, I will post a comprehensive profile of the new nominee, as well as how he compares to the other finalists (barring a surprise choice). In the meantime, please see my blog post about a look at a couple of interesting immigration decisions authored by Judge Gorsuch [see blog].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Judge Hardiman serves on the Third Circuit with the President's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry. Whether this will buttress his case remains to be seen.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Analysis of DHS's Decision to Remove NSEERS Regulations

INTRODUCTION: REPEAL OF NSEERS REGULATIONS

On December 23, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule in the Federal Register that removed the regulations underlying the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program. You can read the final rule here: [81 FR 94231]. The Final rule affects regulations that were found in 8 C.F.R. 214 and 264. NSEERS had not been active since 2011.

In this article, we will examine what the NSEERS program was, what the repeal means, and how it may affect the immigration plans of the incoming Trump Administration.

WHAT WAS NSEERS?

The Federal Register notice explains that the first iteration of the NSEERS program was implemented in 1991 by the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The program instituted special registration and fingerprinting requirements for certain nonimmigrants who were traveling on Iraqi or Kuwaiti travel documents. These regulations were repealed in 1993, but the INS published regulations that allowed the Attorney General to “require certain nonimmigrants of specific countries to be registered and fingerprinted upon arrival to the United States” under section 263(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 263(a)(6) of the INA gives the Attorney General the authority to “prescribe special regulations and forms for the registration and fingerprinting” of any class of aliens not admitted for permanent residence, and (section 263(a)(1)-(5) lists specific classes of aliens).

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the INS proposed and then finalized a rule to expand the existing registration and fingerprinting program in 8 C.F.R. 264.1(f). The regulations also amended 8 C.F.R. 214.1 so as to require selected nonimmigrants to comply with the NSEERS regulations in 8 C.F.R. 264.1(f) as a condition of admission. The program, which was called NSEERS, required designated nonimmigrants to report to the INS within 30 days of arrival in the United States and “upon certain events such as a change of address, and at the time of departure from the United States.” The program initially covered nonimmigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Sudan (Syria was added shortly thereafter). The INS then announced that it would only apply to males of 16 years or older from the designated countries. Between November 2002 and January 2003, the INS added an additional 20 countries to the NSEERS program. In December of 2003, the INS amended the NSEERS regulations to suspend the 30-day post arrival and annual re-registration requirements.

In 2011, the DHS published a notice in the Federal Register stating that it would no longer register nonimmigrants under NSEERS, and it removed all countries from the NSEERS compliance list. Its reasoning was based on the assertion that it had more tools to capture information about nonimmigrant travelers to the United States that were not available in 2002. For this reason and others, the DHS determined that the data captured by NSEERS did not increase security. However, the DHS did not repeal the regulations underlying the NSEERS program.

In 2012, the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended that the DHS eliminate the regulatory structure of NSEERS. Among the reasons provided for this recommendation was that NSEERS had been resource-intensive, the NSEERS database often did not function properly, and NSEERS had been ineffective. Furthermore, the DHS OIG agreed with the DHS that “newer automated targeting systems enabled more sophisticated intelligence-driven targeting than under NSEERS.”

WHY WERE THE REGULATIONS REPEALED NOW?

For reasons that are not entirely clear from the Federal Register notice, the DHS did not act on the OIG's recommendation to repeal the regulations underpinning NSEERS, despite having found that the program would no longer serve a purpose. It has been speculated that the DHS was prompted to repeal the regulations now because of the possibility that President-Elect Donald Trump might consider reinstating a version of the program upon taking office. This speculation was bolstered by his consideration of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach — who was one of the architects of the NSEERS program — for the position of Secretary of Homeland Security. This speculation was then bolstered when Kobach was seen with a policy paper suggesting the revival of the NSEERS program in his meeting with the President-Elect.[1]

Had the NSEERS regulations remained in place, President-Elect Trump would have been able to quickly revive the program if he wanted to do so. However, now that the regulations have been repealed, the DHS would have to promulgate new regulations to create a similar program in the future. It is important to note that although the NSEERS regulations have been repealed, the Attorney General retains the statutory authority under section 263(a)(6) of the INA to execute a similar program for any class of nonimmigrant arrivals.

WAS THE PROGRAM A “MUSLIM REGISTRY”?

The NSEERS program has been commonly called a “Muslim registry.”[2] There are likely two reasons for this. The first reason is that 24 of the 25 countries included in the program were predominantly Muslim, with the lone exception being North Korea. The second reason is that President-Elect Trump has at times suggested a broad Muslim registry of unclear parameters or specific requirements for Muslim aliens seeking admission, or more recently country-specific requirements or restrictions instead of religious ones.

However, looking at how the NSEERS program actually worked, it would be inaccurate to call it a “Muslim registry.” First, the following is the list of countries that were included in the NSEERS program before the DHS ceased using it in 2011:

• Afghanistan;
• Algeria;
• Bahrain;
• Bangladesh;
• Egypt;
• Eritrea;
• Indonesia;
• Iran;
• Iraq;
• Jordan;
• Kuwait;
• Lebanon;
• Libya;
• Morocco;
• North Korea;
• Oman;
• Pakistan;
• Qatar;
• Saudi Arabia;
• Somalia;
• Sudan;
• Syria;
• Tunisia;
• United Arab Emirates; and
• Yemen.

As noted, the law has been commonly called a “Muslim registry” because 24 of the 25 countries have majority Muslim populations. However, there are multiple problems with this overly-broad description.

First, the program applied to all males over the age of 16 from these countries, not only Muslims. Many of the countries on the list, such as Bangladesh, Egypt, Lebanon, and Pakistan (to name a few) have large non-Muslim populations as well. A male Coptic Christian from Egypt was subject to the same registration requirements as a Muslim from Egypt. Furthermore, that the program was limited to males over the age of 16 meant that women were never subject to the NSEERS registration requirements, whether they were Muslim or not.

Second, although 24 of the 25 countries were majority Muslim, the majority of majority-Muslim countries were not included in NSEERS. A Pew Research Center report published in 2011 found that there were 54 countries and regions[3] with populations that were at least 50% Muslim.[4] Of the ten countries with the largest Muslim populations, three — India, Nigeria, and Turkey — were not included in NSEERS (note that Muslims do not make up a majority of India and made up an estimated 41-50% of Nigeria). 12 countries that were found in 2011 to be at least 90% Muslim were not included in NSEERS: Azerbaijan, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

For these reasons, while it is true that the vast majority of nonimmigrants affected by NSEERS were Muslim, it is not fair to call the program a “Muslim registry.” The Bush Administration clearly exercised discretion in choosing which countries should be included in the program, did not base the requirements on religion, and in fact left out a very large number of majority-Muslim countries and countries with significant Muslim minority populations. Had President Bush been creating a Muslim registry, he would have been especially hard-pressed to explain the omission of several countries with significant Muslim populations and many that are nearly entirely Muslim. The fact that nearly every country that was deemed to pose special security risks was predominantly Muslim does not make NSEERS a “Muslim registry.”

WAS THE PROGRAM EFFECTIVE?

Although the program was not a “Muslim registry,” that does not mean that it was ultimately effective. The program was not only ended because the DHS created better tools to monitor and track nonimmigrants, but also because NSEERS did not accomplish what it was created to do. Instead of being an effective national security program, NSEERS mainly led to many individuals covered by the program being charged with regular immigration violations. While finding ways to catch immigration violations is an important mission for the DHS, there is no specific imperative that exists to catch an Egyptian national committing a regular immigration violation that does not exist to catch a Mexican national committing a regular immigration violation. The reason for the program's existence was to identify national security threats. Because the program primarily caught regular immigration violations committed by a small subset of nonimmigrants, it failed in its mission and was not a valuable use of INS/DHS resources.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP?

It is unclear as to whether President-Elect Trump would have revived NSEERS had the regulations not been repealed. For example, it would have seemed likely had he decided to nominate Kris Kobach to be Secretary of DHS, but President-Elect Trump ultimately chose retired General John Kelly, who has no known position on the NSEERS program. As I detailed in multiple blog posts, President-Elect Trump's position on immigration security is unclear, and has been at times absurd [see blog] and at other times somewhat reasonable [see blog].

For a variety of reasons, any action taken by the next administration on immigration — especially as it affects Muslims — will be heavily scrutinized. Some of the reasons for this are fair. For example, the President-Elect proposed early in his campaign to ban all Muslim immigration and he has at the very least alluded to religion-based registries. These proposals were rightfully criticized, reflecting that he will be carefully watched even if he proposes entirely effective and reasonable programs to improve immigration security. Other reasons are unfair. For example, many profess that nonimmigrants seeking admission to the United States, and nonimmigrants already present in the United States, have the same rights as U.S. citizens. This is simply not the case. The United States has an absolute right to determine who is admitted and who is not and under what circumstances and conditions. The President and the Congress have a responsibility to exercise this authority carefully and in ways to protect America's interests and security. We have the authority to assess actions taken with respect to immigration with respect to whether the actions benefit the United States and American security, and not as if nonimmigrants or even permanent residents have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

If President-Elect Trump had plans to revive NSEERS, President Obama did him a favor. Whatever limited benefits NSEERS offered — if any — would have been more than negated by the ensuing firestorm that would have arose had the Trump Administration reinstated it. The Trump Administration will have to make its security-related immigration reforms count and be prepared to carefully explain them to the American people in order to assuage any concerns rooted in past campaign rhetoric or from misconceptions about how immigration law works. NSEERS did not have a record of success to defend, and it has already been defined in the media as a “Muslim registry,” regardless of the inaccuracy of that characterization. The repeal of the implementing regulations for NSEERS will give the Trump Administration and incoming Secretary John Kelly, should he be confirmed, the opportunity to start fresh and develop new immigration reforms that will help improve U.S. security while not squandering its political and moral capital. We can only hope that the President-Elect and his team will propose such sensible and effective immigration reforms in the near future.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Soergel, Andrew, “Kris Kobach Shows His Papers, Reveals Potential Homeland Security Agenda Under Trump,” usnews.com, (Nov. 21, 2016)
2. See e.g., Sakuma, Amanda, “Trump Immigration Adviser Kris Kobach Wrote the Book on Muslim Registry,” nbcnews.com, (Nov. 17, 2016)
3. The list includes a select few regions that are not considered independent countries.
4. Pew Research Center, “Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population,” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, (Oct. 2009); see also, Wikipedia, “Islam by country,” en.wikipedia.org, (retrieved on Dec. 27, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Board Requests Amicus Briefs on Whether the Federal Offense of Misprision of a Felony is a CIMT

INTRODUCTION

On January 5, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05 [PDF version], asking for briefs on the issue of whether the federal offense of misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. 4 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and on the collateral issue of the possible retroactive effect of a ruling. Briefs are due by February 6, 2017. In this article we will offer a brief overview of the issues and what the Board wants interested members of the public to address in amicus curiae (“friends of the court”) briefs.

ISSUES PRESENTED

The Board is asking for briefs to address whether the offense of misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. 4 — a federal criminal statute — categorically qualifies as a CIMT. In order for the offense to categorically qualify as a CIMT, any conviction under any provision of 18 U.S.C. 4 must constitute a CIMT. The language of 18 U.S.C. 4 is as follows:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The Board is asking for briefs to address the issue in light of the following decisions:

• Matter of Robles-Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006) [PDF version];
• Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2012) [PDF version]; and
• Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2002) [PDF version].

In the Matter of Robles-Urrea, the Board had held in 2006 that 18 U.S.C. 4 is a categorical CIMT. In so doing, it overruled in part a previous precedent decision, the Matter of Sloan, 12 I&N Dec. 840 (AG 1968; BIA 1966) [PDF version]. In its decision, the Board noted that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Itani v. Ashcroft, had been the only Court of Appeals to have previously considered the question, and in 2002 it had also concluded that 18 U.S.C. 4 is a CIMT. In 2012, however, in Robels-Urrea v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Board's precedent decision, ruling that 18 U.S.C. 4 is not a categorical CIMT.

The Board asked for amicus curiae briefs to address whether the Board should adhere to its decision in the Matter of Robles-Urrea in circuits other than the Ninth. This would be an option since the Ninth Circuit's decision to reverse the Matter of Robles-Urrea only controls in the Ninth Circuit. The Board also asked for briefs to address an interesting issue that would arise if the Board chooses to adhere to the Matter of Robles-Urrea in all circuits — that is, whether applying the Matter of Robles-Urrea to convictions for acts committed prior to its publication in 2006 would be impermissibly retroactive. This issue would arise because the Matter of Robels-Urrea overruled a previous administrative precedent decision in the Matter of Sloan, 12 I&N Dec. 840 (AG 1968; BIA 1966), that had held that the crime of misprison of a felony was not a CIMT.

CONCLUSION

The amicus invitation can be readily broken into two parts. The first part is the question of whether 18 U.S.C. 4 is a categorical CIMT. The second part comes into play only if the Board were to reaffirm its position that 18 U.S.C. 4 is a categorical CIMT. The first issue is whether the Board should hold to its position outside of the Ninth Circuit, notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit's contrary position. The second issue is whether the Matter of Robels-Urrea could be applied retroactively to pre-2006 cases if the Board stands by it outside of the Ninth Circuit.

We will update the site if the Board renders a new precedent opinion that clarifies its position on these issues.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS Annual Flow Report on Refugees and Asylees for FY-2015

In November of 2016, the DHS released its Annual Flow Report for refugees and asylees [PDF version].[1] The Annual Flow Report includes numerous statistics and facts regarding refugee and asylees in Fiscal Year-2015. In this article, we will examine a selection of the statistics from the Annual Flow Report, which is well-worth reading in its entirety.

Please see my blog posts about the DHS Annual Flow Reports on nonimmigrants [see blog] and naturalizations [see blog].

PROPOSED AND ACTUAL REFUGEE ADMISSIONS

In FY-2015, the proposed ceiling for refugee admissions was 70,000. The United States ended up admitting 69,920 refugees, nearly hitting the ceiling. The actual number of refugees admitted was nearly identical to FY-2014 (69,975) and FY-2013 (69,909).

In addition to the total proposed ceiling, the Department of State proposes targets by region in each fiscal year. The targets were as follows for FY-2015:

• Africa - 17,000
• East Asia - 13,000
• Europe/Central Asia - 1,000
• Latin America/Caribbean - 4,000
• Near East/South Asia - 33,000
• Unallocated Reserve - 2,000

In FY-2015, the actual admissions for the first three regions exceeded their targets. 22,472 refugees were admitted from Africa, 18,456 from East Asia, and 2,363 from Europe/Central Asia. Conversely, the latter two regions saw significantly fewer refugee admissions than their targets. Only 2,050 refugees were admitted from Latin America/Caribbean and 24,579 from Near East/South Asia (8,421 short of the target). The unallocated reserve was not tapped into in FY-2015.

In FY-2014 and FY-2013, actual refugee admissions were more in line with the ceilings. Africa exceeded its initial ceiling in both years as did East Asia in FY-2014, but each did so by smaller margins than t in FY-2015. Perhaps as a result of the large number of refugees admitted from those two regions, Near East/South Asia saw a significant drop in FY-2015, after having had just over 32,000 refugee admissions in FY-2014 and FY-2013. The Latin America/Caribbean region saw 4,318 and 4,439 refugees admitted in FY-2014 and FY-2013, respectively, but less than half of that in FY-2015. The largest percent increase in refugees in FY-2015 was for Europe/Central Asia. This region saw a combined total of 1,539 refugees admitted in FY-2014 and FY-2013, fewer than the 2,363 admitted in FY-2015 alone.

REFUGEE ARRIVALS BY COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY

The following is the list of the top 10 countries of nationality for refugee arrivals in FY-2015 (by percent of the total):

1. Burma - 26.3%
2. Iraq - 18.1%
3. Somalia - 12.7%
4. Democratic Republic of the Congo - 11.3%
5. Bhutan - 8.3%
6. Iran - 4.4%
7. Syria - 2.4%
8. Eritrea - 2.3%
9. Sudan - 2.3%
10. Cuba - 2.2%

The remaining 9.8% came from other countries (including “unknown”). In FY-2014 and 2013, Iraq was the largest source of refugees of any individual country, with Burma following in second. However, Iraq saw a marked decrease in FY-2015 with approximately 7,000 fewer refugees arriving from that country than in the previous two years. Bhutan and Cuba also experienced significant decreases in FY-2015. Burma and the Democratic Republic of the Congo saw more than 3,000 additional refugees in FY-2015 than in the previous year. The most dramatic increase in percentage terms came from Syria, with 1,682 refugees arriving in FY-2015 after only 141 in the previous two fiscal years combined.

ASYLUM

26,124 individuals were granted asylum in FY-2015. Of these, 17,878 were granted asylum affirmatively, and 8,246 were granted asylum defensively. FY-2015 saw a slight increase in the number of individuals granted asylum from FY-2014 (23,374) and FY-2013 (25,151). However, the increase is not uniform. FY-2014 and FY-2013 saw more individuals granted asylum defensively (3,980 and 4,535 respectively) than were granted in FY-2015. FY-2015's greater number of total asylum grants over the previous two years reflected the increased number of affirmative asylum grants, which more than made up for the decrease in defensive asylum grants.

The following are the top 10 countries of nationality of individuals granted asylum in FY-2015 (by total of affirmative and defensive asylum grants):

1. People's Republic of China - 6,192
2. El Salvador - 2,173
3. Guatemala - 2,082
4. Egypt - 1,666
5. Honduras - 1,416
6. Syria - 974
7. Ethiopia - 879
8. Mexico - 870
9. Iraq - 766
10. Iran - 674

Nationals of countries not listed, including cases marked on the chart as unknown, were granted asylum in 8,432 cases, representing 32.3% of the total. China's 6,192 represented 23.7% of that total. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras saw dramatic increases in the number of asylum grants in FY-2015. None of these three countries exceeded Honduras's 486 nationals granted asylum in either FY-2014 or 2013, but each saw a dramatic spike in asylum grants in FY-2015. Please see my blog to learn more about the security situation on the Southwest border [see blog]. China and Egypt each saw significant decreases in the number of asylum cases granted in FY-2015 relative to the previous two years.

The following are the top 10 countries of nationality of individuals granted asylum affirmatively in FY-2015:

1. People's Republic of China - 2,582
2. El Salvador - 1,870
3. Guatemala - 1,713
4. Egypt - 1,517
5. Honduras - 1,109
6. Syria - 873
7. Iraq - 711
8. Mexico - 667
9. Iran - 640
10. Ethiopia - 624

Individuals from countries not listed were granted asylum affirmatively on 5,572 occasions, constituting 31.2% of the total of affirmative asylum grants. China represents only 14.4% of affirmative asylum grants, showing that the bulk of Chinese asylum grants come in defensive asylum cases. Conversely, the vast majority of asylum grants to individuals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are in affirmative asylum cases.

The following are the top 10 countries of nationality of individuals granted asylum defensively in FY-2015:

1. People's Republic of China - 3,610
2. Guatemala - 369
3. Honduras - 307
4. El Salvador - 303
5. India - 303
6. Ethiopia - 255
7. Nepal - 253
8. Mexico - 203
9. Soviet Union - 176
10. Somalia - 166

Nationals of countries not listed (including those of unknown nationality) were granted asylum defensively in 2,301 cases, representing 27.9% of all defensive asylum grants in FY-2015. 43.8% of all individuals granted asylum defensively were nationals of China. Interestingly, four countries — India, Nepal, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union — appear on the defensive asylum top 10 but not in the overall top 10, reflecting the fact that there were significantly more individuals granted asylum affirmatively than defensively in FY-2015.

CONCLUSION

The refugee and asylum statistics on the Annual Flow Report are highly interesting, and the full document includes statistics that we do not discuss in this post, such as following-to-join statistics for asylees, and where individuals granted asylum resided in the United States. Interestingly, in FY-2015, 12.5% of all individuals granted asylum affirmatively resided in New York (second most of any state) and 4.8% resided in New Jersey (fourth most of any state).

To learn about the complicated process for seeking asylum or refugee protection in the United States, please see the full section on our website [see category]. We also discuss other forms of relief and protection such as statutory withholding of removal [see article], protection under the Convention Against Torture [see article], and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) [see category].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Mossaad, Nadwa, “Refugees and Asylees: 2015,” dhs.gov, (Nov. 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

EOIR Releases New Final Rule on Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-attorney Representatives

On December 19, 2016, the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) published a new final rule titled “Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-Attorney Representatives” in the Federal Register [see 81 FR 92346]. The new rule, which takes effect on January 18, 2017, will amend regulations found in 8 C.F.R. 1001, 8 C.F.R. 1003, 8 C.F.R. 1103, and 8 C.F.R. 1212.

In a summary of the rule posted on the EOIR website, the EOIR states that “[t]he purpose of the rule is to promote the effective and efficient administration of justice before EOIR and DHS by increasing the availability of competent, non-lawyer representation for low-income and indigent persons.” The EOIR notes that the new rule will also clarify the recognition and accreditation application process, establish greater oversight and accountability for recognized organizations and accredited representatives, and update the disciplinary process to ensure that recognized organizations and accredited representatives “are subject to sanctions for conduct that violates the public interest.” Finally, the new rule will transfer management of the program from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to the Office of Legal Access Programs.

You may read the EOIR's summary of the new rule here [link]. We discuss where you may find an EOIR video training session about the new rule in a separate post [see blog].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS Annual Flow Report on Naturalization Statistics for FY-2015

In November of 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its Annual Flow Report for naturalizations in Fiscal Year 2015 [PDF version].[1] The PDF contains many charts and interesting data, and is well-worth reading in full. In this article, we will examine the Flow Report's data on the countries of birth of those naturalized in FY-2015. We will also assess the median time (in years) that individuals naturalized in FY-2015 spent in lawful permanent resident status (LPR) prior to naturalization.

Please see my blog posts about the Annual Flow Reports on nonimmigrants [see blog] and on refugees and asylees [see blog].

PERSONS NATURALIZED BY REGION AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH

In FY-2015, 730,259 individuals were naturalized in the United States. This represented a marked increase from FY-2014 (653,416), but a decrease from FY-2013 (779,929). In FY-2015, 261,374 of the individuals were from Asia, and 247,492 were from North America. Asia and North America combined to make up 69.7% of all of the naturalizations in FY-2015.

The following is the list of the top 20 countries of birth of individuals naturalized in FY-2015 (by percent of the total):

1. Mexico (14.5%)
2. India (5.8%)
3. Philippines (5.6%)
4. People's Republic of China (4.3%)
5. Dominican Republic (3.7%)
6. Cuba (3.5%)
7. Vietnam (3.0%)
8. Colombia (2.4%)
9. El Salvador (2.3%)
10. Jamaica (2.3%)
11. Iraq (2.0%)
12. South Korea (1.9%)
13. Haiti (1.9%)
14. Pakistan (1.6%)
15. Peru (1.5%)
16. Brazil (1.4%)
17. Nigeria (1.4%)
18. Iran (1.4%)
19. United Kingdom (1.4%)
20. Bangladesh (1.4%)

These top 20 countries made up 63.3% of the total, meaning that the remaining 36.7% was comprised of other countries. Interestingly, these same 20 countries also constituted 63.3% of the total number of naturalizations in FY-2014 (although individual countries made up different percentages).

MEDIAN YEARS IN LPR STATUS PRIOR TO NATURALIZATION BY REGION OF BIRTH AND YEAR OF NATURALIZATION

The Annual Flow Report contains data going back to FY-2006 for the median number of years that persons who procured naturalization in each year spent in LPR status prior to naturalization. Furthermore, the Annual Flow Report breaks this down by region of birth.

For individuals who were naturalized in FY-2015, the median number of years spent in LPR status prior to naturalization was 7. The following list shows the median number of years for persons naturalized in each year going back to 2006:

• 2015 - 7
• 2014 - 7
• 2013 - 7
• 2012 - 7
• 2011 - 6
• 2010 - 6
• 2009 - 7
• 2008 - 9
• 2007 - 8
• 2006 - 7

The following list shows the median number of years by region of birth for FY-2015:

• Africa - 6
• Asia - 6
• Europe - 9
• North America - 10
• Oceania - 9
• South America - 7

One interesting note is that the median number of years spent in LPR status for individuals from Europe who procure naturalization hit a new high in 2015. From FY-2006-2013, the median number was either 6 or 7. However, in FY-2014, the median number of years climbed to 8, and in FY-2015 it reached 9 for the first time. The median number of years for individuals from North America has been at least 10 for each year in the Annual Flow Report, and no other region has had reached 10 in any individual year.

CONCLUSION

In FY-2015, 15.6% of all individuals who were naturalized lived in the New York-Newark-Jersey City Metropolitan Area. With 113,758 naturalizations, the NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Area was the leading Metropolitan Area of residence for people seeking naturalization. Please see our website's section on Citizenship and Naturalization to learn about how to apply for naturalization, the requirements for naturalization, and other issues in the naturalization process [see category].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Wistman, Katherine and Ryan Baugh, “U.S. Naturalizations: 2015,” dhs.gov, (Nov. 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

In Puzzling Report, the UN Blames Israel for Domestic Violence in the West Bank and Gaza

On December 23, 2016, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, and failed creative writer-turned-State Department Advisor extraordinaire Benjamin Rhodes colluded with a motley crew of nefarious actors to align the outgoing administration of the United States with those who seek to destroy America's greatest ally, Israel. Specifically, Ambassador Power “abstained” from a Security Council resolution that in effect declares all Israeli “settlement” activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal. It is now the position of our outgoing President that the presence of Israeli Jews in the Old City's Jewish quarter is, in fact, illegal.

For good reason, President Obama has hardly been considered Israel's best friend to occupy the White House over the past eight years. However, for all of his counterproductive and dangerous actions, it took a special kind of gall to knife Israel in the back in the confines of the United Nations, a body that famously once declared that “Zionism is Racism” under a Secretary had been an officer in the Wehrmacht in the Second World War. Under the umbrella of the United Nations, UNESCO recently declared that neither Jews nor Christians have any ties to the holy sites in Jerusalem's Old City. Perhaps there was no more fitting venue for President Obama's final act of betrayal than the United Nations.

In this article, I would like to highlight a particularly absurd anti-Semitic incident from the United Nations in September of 2016. Although it pales in comparison to the actions of the United Nations on the first day of Hanukkah on the 23rd of September, it will provide us with a useful template for understanding the United Nations' pathological hatred of the Jewish state and its people. After reading this article, please see my full article on President Obama's disgrace at the United Nations, and my thoughts on where the United States under a President Trump and a unified Republican Congress can go after the country is finally rid of President Obama in the White House [see blog].

UNDERSTANDING THE UN'S HOSTILITY TOWARD ISRAEL

On September 26, 2016, UN Watch reported that Dubravka Simonovic, the United Nations Rapporteur on violence against women, visited the West Bank to investigate the endemic violence against women in the predominantly Palestinian areas [link].[1] Had it been any other organization besides the United Nations conducting the investigation, one may expect a detailed report on how cultural rot may lead a disproportionate number of men in a society to find it acceptable to abuse women. A cursory look around countries in the Middle East shows that it is not a region hospitable to the rights of women. As the United Nations discovered in its ultimately flawed investigation, the predominantly Arab areas of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank are no exception. Considering the trends in the region, it should come as no surprise that Gaza, which is dominated by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, is not at the vanguard of women's rights. Although Mahmoud Abbas — who is now in the eleventh year of a five-year term as President — is touted as a moderate, it is safe to say that women are far safer in the majority of areas on Israel that do not count on Abbas' feckless government for protection.

Of course, it was the United Nations, and not an impartial investigative body, studying the situation of women in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. In 1984, then-Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick gave a memorable keynote speech renominating President Ronald Reagan, where she accused the Democrats of always blaming America first. Kirkpatrick was a steadfast supporter of Israel, and her attack against the “San Francisco Democrats” could just as easily be applied to the United Nations' position on Israel. The United Nations will always blame Israel first, no matter what contortions are required to do it.

True to form, Simonovic managed to contort reason in seemingly anatomically impossible ways to turn an investigation into violence against women into an anti-Semitic rant against Israel. According to Simonovic's bizarre report, the reason why Palestinian men beat their wives in Israel is because of Israel. To restate this, her investigation allegedly discovered that when a Palestinian man assaults his wife, it is because of the so-called Israeli occupation. Whether it is because of home demolitions of illegal buildings or the homes of terrorists, the inefficacy and indifference of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, or the lack of mobility for people in Gaza (nowhere does she ask why the thoroughly Islamist Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have not made more progress on domestic violence resources than on terror tunnels), Palestinian men beat their wives because of Israel.

Now, one may wonder about the effect that culture has on domestic violence in the West Bank and Gaza. Well, according to Simonovic, the so-called Israeli occupation allowed bad cultural practices to become “petrified.” Apparently, the mere existence of Israel prevents Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza from reassessing cultural practices that underlie systemic violence against women. It should come as no surprise that she addressed cultural rot no further, or that she failed to inquire as to the effect that extremist interpretations of Islam may have on the pervasiveness of violence against women (especially in Gaza).

One would be curious as to what Simonovic would consider the cause of high rates of domestic violence in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria. Following her logic that Palestinian men beat their wives because of Israel, I would not be at all surprised if she chalked up violence against women in other Middle Eastern countries as a show of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. It would have been instructive to consider why the situation of women in Israel is so dramatically better than anywhere in the Arab world, but such comparisons would not be in accord with the United Nations' radical Islamist-supporting agenda. For an interesting look at the attitudes of the Middle East on women, please see my blog post which addresses the subject [see blog].

It must be said that Simonovic's report is as offensive to reason as it is to Israel. At the Law Offices of Grinberg and Segal, PLLC, we have dealt with many domestic violence cases in both the immigration and family law contexts. I cannot fathom how someone can look into the eyes of a domestic violence victim and see the opportunity to use the situation to apologize domestic abusers in the name of advancing a bigoted agenda. It is almost hard to tell if Simonvic's goal was primarily to apologize for cultural rot in the Arab world or to slander Israel, but whichever it was; she accomplished both with flying colors. It is a further disgrace that this woman is not just any hack at the United Nations, but the hack specifically charged with investigating violence against women across the world. As rape is used as a weapon throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, she spent her time perverting perverse behavior in the West Bank and Gaza to perpetrate a libelous smear against Israel.

The United Nations, as it usually does, cloaked itself in shame in an issue regarding Israel. In so doing, it insulted its people, the domestic violence victims of the West Bank and Gaza, domestic violence victims around the world, and all people who have not abandoned basic logic for anti-Semitism.

CONCLUSION

Simonovic's report is just one example of the United Nations' absurd fixation on Israel-bashing. Given its close proximity to President Obama's ultimate abandonment at the United Nations, the story offers an interesting look into the types of individuals that President Obama decided to ally himself with to spite Israel before the General Assembly. I would like to remind you again to read my full blog post on the President's shameful decision on December 23, 2016 [see blog].

Fortunately, U.S. immigration law provides for certain forms of relief for domestic violence victims that actually address domestic violence instead of blaming Israel. To read about the remedies that immigration law offers many victims of domestic violence, please see our website's sections on Victims of Violence Immigration [see category] and removal and deportation defense [see category].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. UN Watch, “UN expert: When Palestinian men beat their wives, it's Israel's fault,” unwatch.org, (Sep. 26, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

DHS Annual Flow Report on Nonimmigrant Admission Statistics for FY-2015

In December of 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its Annual Flow Report for nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in 2015 [PDF version].[1] The Flow Report includes eight pages of interesting information and charts with various nonimmigrant admissions statistics for 2015, and it is well worth reading in its entirety. In this post, I will highlight the 2015 statistics for nonimmigrant admissions by class of admission and for nonimmigrant admissions by country.

Please see my blog posts about the DHS Annual Flow Reports on naturalizations [see blog] and on refugees and asylees [see blog].

NOTE

The following statistics cover individuals who were admitted with Forms I-94/I-94W. The document explains that “[t]he I-94 data do not describe all nonimmigrant admissions because certain visitors are not required to fill out I-94 forms.” Notably, many visitors from Mexico and Canada are not required to complete the I-94. Because citizens of Mexico and Canada “make up the vast majority of all nonimmigrant admissions,” this has a significant effect on the following statistics. Furthermore, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began automating the I-94 process for aliens admitted at air and seaports, which explains an apparent jump in admissions beginning in FY-2014 in the following statistics.

NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS (I-94 ONLY) BY CLASS OF ADMISSION

Page 4 of the DHS's Annual Flow Report contains a chart that details nonimmigrant admissions by class of admission, Form I-94 only, for fiscal years 2013 to 2015.

Fiscal Year 2015 saw a total of 76,638,236 nonimmigrants admitted into the United States. This was an increase of just over 1.7 million from 2014 and nearly 15.5 million from 2013.

79.6% of all nonimmigrants admitted were admitted as temporary visitors for pleasure. Of these, 54.4% of all nonimmigrants admitted were admitted as B2 temporary visitors for pleasure, and 23.7% were admitted under the Visa Waiver Program as visitors for pleasure (WV). The remaining 1.6% of nonimmigrants admitted as visitors for pleasure were admitted under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.

10.4% of all nonimmigrants admitted were admitted as temporary visitors for business. 6.4% of these were admitted as B1 nonimmigrants, and 4.0% were admitted under the Visa Waiver Program as temporary visitors for business (WB).

Combined, temporary visitors for pleasure and temporary visitors for business made up approximately 90% of all nonimmigrant admissions in FY-2015. Their combined total was approximately 90.1% in 2014 and 89.5% in 2013, meaning that the percentage of all nonimmigrants admitted in 2015 who were temporary visitors for pleasure or business remained steady in FY-2015. Please see our website's section on Travel Visas to learn more about visiting the United States for business or please [see article].

Temporary workers and families made up 4.9% of all of the nonimmigrant admissions in 2015. The largest individual group in this category were intracompany transferees and their families, who made up 1.2% of the total. 1% of the total were North American Free Trade Agreement professionals (admitted in TN status). We discuss work visas on our website [see article].

2.5% of all of the nonimmigrants admitted were nonimmigrant students and their families (F1 and M1 students). 0.9% of all of the nonimmigrants were transit aliens (C1, C2, and C3); 0.8% were J1 exchange visitors and family, and 0.6% were admitted as diplomats and other representatives and family members thereof.

NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS (I-94 ONLY) BY COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

The second and final chart we will look at in this post breaks down the countries of citizenship of the 76,638,236 Form I-94 nonimmigrants who were admitted in FY-2015. The 2015 statistics are listed below:

1. Mexico - 26.6%
2. Canada - 17.5%
3. United Kingdom - 6.5%
4. Japan - 5.2%
5. China - 3.8%
6. Brazil - 3.3%
7. Germany - 3.1%
8. France - 2.7%
9. South Korea - 2.5%
10. India - 2.5%

26.2% of the nonimmigrants come from countries outside of the top 10. An additional 0.1% were listed as “unknown.”

In terms of its share of the total, China saw a significant jump, making up 3.8% of all nonimmigrant admissions in 2015 after only 3.4% in 2014. Japan saw a significant decrease in its share of the total, falling to 5.2% from 5.6%.

CONCLUSION

The DHS's Annual Flow Report contains many interesting charts that we did not cover here with statistics regarding the most used ports-of-entry, destination states, and age/gender of nonimmigrants admitted. Please see the full document for more statistics regarding nonimmigrant admissions in FY-2015.

To learn about many of the nonimmigrant categories discussed in this article, please see our website's sections on Travel Visas [see category], Work Visas [see category], and Student Visas [see category].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Teke, Johne and Waleed Navarro, “Nonimmigrant Admissions to the United States: 2015,” dhs.gov, (Dec. 2015)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

EOIR Establishes New Youtube Channel for Stakeholders

On December 21, 2016, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced that it has established a new YouTube channel “to offer its stakeholders another medium in which to acquire information about its policy and programs.” This new channel will provide EOIR stakeholders with training sessions and information on EOIR processes and news. For example, the first training session posted on the EOIR's YouTube channel is a training session on its recently issued final rule, “Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-Attorney Representatives” [PDF version] [see blog].

Although the new YouTube channel promises to be a useful resource for EOIR stakeholders, the EOIR website “will continue to be the agency's primary source of information online.”

You may read the EOIR's news release on the new YouTube channel here [link].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

EOIR Announces Appointment of New Administrative Law Judge at the OCAHO

On December 2, 2016, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced the appointment of James McHenry as an administrative law judge (ALJ) in the EOIR's Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO). This appointment was effective November 14, 2016. The Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Robert M. Stutman, stated of the appointment that it “will greatly increase OCAHO's capacity to adjudicate cases of illegal hiring and employment eligibility verification violations, complaints of discrimination based on an individual's citizenship status or national origin or over-documentation in the employment eligibility verification process, and allegations of immigration-related document fraud.”

Judge McHenry brings extensive experience to his new job, including stints with the EOIR, Social Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. His extensive background suggests that he will be a valuable addition to the EOIR.

You may read the EOIR's full news release here [link].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

President Obama's Unprecedented Betrayal of Israel at the UN: An Addendum

INTRODUCTION

Earlier today, I drafted a long blog post about President Obama's betrayal of Israel and of American values at the United Nations [see blog].

After finishing my post, I came across a very interesting op-ed on the same issues by the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick, titled “Our World: Obama's war against America” [link].[1] In this post, I will examine some the salient points in Glick's op-ed, and offer my thoughts as an addendum to my main blog post. To read more about the United Nations is willing to obliterate logic to spew venom at Israel, please see an additional blog that I posted on the subject [see blog].

GLICK'S COLUMN AND MY THOUGHTS

Glick began her post by citing to a 1989 column in Commentary by our former Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick (I discuss Kirkpatrick in brief in my first blog post on the United Nations' bias against Israel [see blog]). In the passage Glick cited to, Kirkpatrick stated that:

“But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the [Palestinian Liberation Organization] might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

To be sure, no United States President did as much to prove Kirkpatrick's warning correct as did Barack Obama on December 23, 2016. In my post, I addressed many of the reasons why President Obama decided to betray Israel, but noted that in the end, he most likely acted on beliefs that he had long before he took the White House. In considering reasons, I alluded to President Obama's efforts to cater to the Iranian regime and to establish it as a powerful actor in the Middle East.

In her article, Glick offered further reasons in support of the assertion that President Obama's decision was without precedent and made to achieve nefarious ends. Glick starts from an important assertion — to which I agree — that defending Israel is in the U.S. interest. Indeed, it is not logically inconceivable that one could harbor anti-Semitic sentiments and still recognize that supporting Israel is in the distinct interest of the free world. This would be no more inconceivable than European countries with longstanding rivalries working together in broad coalitions to confront evil actors in both World War I and World War II. Israel's detractors — such as President Obama on the left and Patrick J. Buchanan on the right — endeavor to drive a wedge between America's interest and Israel's interest by asserting that the interests are clear and distinct, and thereby use this false premise to smear supporters of Israel as putting foreign interests above America's. In truth, nothing could be further from the truth.

Glick explains that over the last 70 years, America's support for Israel has not only been to stand by its ally, but also to “stand for American power and the inherent justice of American superpower status and global leadership.” She explains that the Soviet Union endeavored to delegitimize Israel at the United Nations “as a means to undermine the moral basis for the US-led west.” It is no surprise given the Soviet Union's record on individual liberty and human rights that it would make common cause with anti-western countries and movements that had little to no regard for either. The Soviet's hoped that by using the United Nations to bludgeon Israel, it would also delegitimize western values and American leadership around the world. As Glick notes, these efforts unfortunately did not end with the demise of the Soviet Union, for many of the remnants of the Soviet Union made common cause with Islamists and leftists to continue trying to delegitimize Israel, American leadership, and western values at the United Nations.

Having developed her argument, Glick explains that President Obama did not only join the “anti-Israel lynch mob” at the United Nations Security Council to act on his long-held beliefs, but to deliver “a strategic victor to the anti-American forces that seek to destroy the coherence of American superpower status.” To this effect in my blog, I discussed actions that President Obama has taken to empower and embolden Iran, coddle Islamists, and make common cause with other enemies of western values. After President Obama's much-derided “apology tour” through the Middle East after taking office, his agenda should have been no surprise. However, Glick makes an even broader point — based on a careful study of the relationship between the United States, the United Nations, and Israel — that President Obama's objective was to undermine the moral basis for decades of American leadership in the world.

In my article, I discussed in brief that leading members of the United States Senate, such as Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Tom Cotton, have pledged to work with President-Elect Trump to take concrete action against the United Nations in response to its slander against Israel and liberty (while saving a more detailed discussion for a later date). All three of these Senators propose defunding the United Nations. For his part, President-Elect Trump has worked tirelessly against President Obama's efforts to delegitimize Israel, and has pledged to change America's relationship to the United Nations when he takes office. The United States may move to defund the United Nations as well as reassessing its involvement entirely.

In her op-ed, Glick made an interesting proposal for a response that neither the three Senators I mentioned nor President-Elect Trump has suggested yet. Glick argued that after defunding the United Nations, the United States could use its “Security Council veto to end the [United Nations'] role as an arbiter of international peace and security, by among other things, ending the deployment of [United Nations] forces to battle zones.” In taking this action rather than only defunding the United Nations or completely ending U.S. involvement, Glick argues that we would “[strip] the [United Nations] of its financial wherewithal to assault U.S. allies and American interests by denying it the institutional and operational capacity to serve as an arbiter of disputes morally and legally superior to the [United States].”

To be sure, President-Elect Trump and the U.S. Congress will have many options available for responding to the disgraceful United Nations based on January 20. Glick offers an interesting proposal that will merit strong consideration from the Trump Administration and by Congressional leaders. Additionally, her proposal to use the Security Council veto to severely limit the scope of the United Nations would be something that a President Trump could do unilaterally in the event that a large number of members of Congress work to shield the United Nations from the just consequences of its disgraceful actions.

I look forward to posting more about these important issues as the situation continues to develop.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Glick, Caroline, “Our World: Obama's war against America,” jpost.com, (Dec. 26, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

President Obama's Unconscionable Betrayal of Israel at the UN

INTRODUCTION

On December 23, 2016, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, abstained from a vote to condemn Israel “settlements” in the West Bank. As a result of this dereliction of conscience, the United States allowed a virulent anti-Israel resolution to pass the United Nations Security Council. The effect of this position is to make the policy of the United Nations — and the outgoing administration of President Barack Obama — that all Israeli “settlements” and “settlers” in so-called “Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967” illegal. To be clear, it is now the position of President Obama that Israeli settlements in the Jewish Quarter of the Jerusalem's Old City are illegal. Considering the fact that Jordan lost swaths of the Jewish homeland in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a result of having declared war on Israel in 1967, it must be said that President Obama and the United Nations have taken the position that the Palestinians are entitled to an unprecedented mulligan.

Furthermore, it may be of interest to many Christians to know that the position of the Obama Administration is that many of Christianity's holiest sites should be in a state that is either run by the feckless and illegitimate Mahmoud Abbas or by Hamas.

In this article, I will examine the contents of this disgraceful resolution that President Obama supported and allowed to pass, reasons why President Obama's final betrayal of Israel should surprise no one, and how President-Elect Trump, the unified Republican Congress, and the Israeli Government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be able to respond after President-Elect Trump takes office on January 20, 2017.

Please see my blog discussing the United Nations' hostility toward Israel to learn more about why President Obama's decision was especially odious [see blog].

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE UNITED NATIONS?

While the United States has been Israel's most loyal and valuable ally since 1947, its record of supporting Israel has certainly been far from perfect. I detail much of the background of U.S.-Israeli relations, with a focus on the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, in a blog post on the Republican Party and Israel [see blog].

Since President Reagan took office on January 20, 1981, the United States has made a habit of vetoing the most virulent anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations. There have been exceptions, such as when President Reagan's Administration supported an ill-conceived condemnation of Israel's preemptive strike against an Iraqi nuclear reactor, but for the most part, the United States has protected Israel at the United Nations. This posture has been especially important since Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization signed the first iteration of the Olso Accords in 1993, wherein Israel made certain concessions in return for diplomatic assurances.

Although President Obama's administration has been broadly hostile toward Israel on a number of important issues, it had, until December 23, 2016, vetoed lopsided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council. The United States is one of only five countries (China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom are the four others) to have a permanent seat on the Security Council and the power to unilaterally veto resolutions. Because the United States is the only one of the five permanent members willing to consistently veto anti-Israel initiatives, it goes without saying that it is Israel's most crucial ally in the hostile United Nations [see blog].

However, for much of his second term, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry became frustrated with their inability to make headway toward a “two-state solution” in Israel. Finding that the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu was unwilling to make the sorts of incomprehensible concessions that President Obama and Secretary Kerry made in order to empower the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, the Obama Administration began to take out its frustration by threatening to change the United States' posture toward Israel on the Security Council.

Israel knew it was entering a dangerous period in the aftermath of the U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections in November of 2016. President Obama, who had barely more than two months left in office before his retirement, had nothing to lose. Furthermore, he would be succeeded by the current President-Elect, Donald J. Trump, who ran promising to reverse much of President Obama's so-called “achievements.” President-Elect Trump showed his hand on Israel when he named David Friedman as Ambassador-designate. It takes only a quick glance at Friedman's public statements to conclude that he is quite likely to be the most pro-Israel Ambassador in U.S. History. While this was cause for celebration for the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel's allies in the United States, it perhaps added further incentive for President Obama and his team to “lash out”[1] at Israel one last time before vacating the White House.

Rumors circulated in late November that the State Department engaged in discussions with the Palestinian Authority about how to bring a resolution condemning Israeli settlements to the Security Council floor. Then, as we entered the second half of December, it became clear that a version of the resolution would be brought up for a vote by Egypt. It was immediately clear to the Israeli Government and the United States Congress that the Obama Administration intended to allow the absurd measure to pass. Running out of options, the Israeli Government appealed to President-Elect Trump's transition team. Miraculously, President-Elect Trump and his team were able to work with Israel to pressure Egypt into dropping the resolution “indefinitely.” My disagreements with President-Elect Trump, and my decision to support him in the general election, with reservations, have been well documented [see blog; blog]. However, I have nothing but praise for President-Elect Trump's efforts to stand athwart the Obama Administration's effort to slander Israel before the United Nations, and I am extremely optimistic that his unwavering support for Israel will be what we can expect for at least the next four years.

Unfortunately, President-Elect Trump's power was limited, and the resolution was brought back the next day by New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia, and Venezuela. Prime Minister Netanyahu's government has stated that it has “rather ironclad information” that the Obama Administration was behind the effort to advance the resolution.[2] Although the Obama Administration denies the charge, it must be said that where there is smoke, there is often fire. The Obama Administration has not established a record of trustworthiness, and on an issue where he seems to be acting out of spite, cannot be taken at its word. Despite the Obama Administration having found its vehicle to ensure the resolution would come up for a vote, many held out hope that the Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, would vote no. President-Elect Trump did not relent in his effort to ensure a good outcome for Israel, nor did many Republican and Democratic members of Congress. However, their lobbying would ultimately be for naught.

Ambassador Power meekly abstained after having been behind the effort to pass the resolution. However, an abstention ended up being a de facto yes vote, and the resolution passed with 14 in favor of slandering Israel, and one in favor but lacking the courage of its convictions. Writing for Fox News, Anne Bayefsky described the backstabbing as a “hate fest” and “diplomatic terrorism.”[3] I could not describe it better myself, although I will note that most individuals would have the dignity to acknowledge what they are doing when perpetrating an act of diplomatic terrorism. However, we should not expect that much from the man who made inexplicable concessions to Iran and then paid ransom for the release of U.S. Service Members.

WHY WE SHOULD BE DISAPPOINTED, BUT NOT SURPRISED

The resolution was not only opposed by Republicans, but also by many Democrats. Among the Democrats who stood on the right side of this issue was the incoming Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer of New York. Senator Schumer has generally been a strong ally of Israel, notwithstanding his recent support for Congressman Keith Ellison — a notorious anti-Semite — for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Senator Schumer described President Obama's decision as “extremely frustrating, disappointing[,] and confounding.” With all due respect to Senator Schumer — who was on the right side of this issue — the decision did not confound many of us who have been wary of President Obama for eight years. In addition to the decision being unsurprising, the degree to which it was driven by his deep-seated hostility toward the Jewish State becomes evident with a bit of digging.

Many theories have been advanced as to why President Obama did this. I addressed some already, such as his frustration with his own impotency in advancing peace negotiations and nearly pathological disdain for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In a geopolitical sense, one could look to his fixation on making concessions to Iran as another cause of the agreement. To some extent, all of these things are true. However, granting these points, we still risk missing the proverbial forest through the trees. The truth of the matter is that President Obama is broadly sympathetic toward the Palestinian cause and hostile toward Israel and what it represents. To point this out when he was running in 2008 was to risk being accused or racism. Now the truth is available for all to see, and many pro-Israel commentators on the right should be expecting their apologies.

It was known during his campaign for President that then-Senator Obama had many stridently anti-Israel figures in his orbit. For example, he had been a close friend of Rashid Khalidi, a leading anti-Israel academic who at one time worked with the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Lebanon. President Obama's relationship with Khalidi was reported in detail by the National Review's Andrew McCarthy in 2008 [link].[4] In 2003, as he was preparing to run for a United States Senate seat, then State Senator Obama attended a party in honor of Khalidi that was also attended by Bill Ayers, an erstwhile domestic terrorist-turned garden variety campus leftist and anti-Semite. The event was hosted by the Arab American Action Network, an organization with which the then-State Senator had been previously associated and which is not known for its tendency to defend Israel. The Los Angeles Times reported of the event that then-State Senator Obama said in his speech Khalidi and his wife had been “constant reminders of my own blind spots and biases.” Although the L.A. Times noted that the then-State Senator “adopted a different tone in his comments” regarding Israel than speakers who compared “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, it seems peculiar than someone who is pro-Israel would be caught dead at such an event. Evidently, the now-President Obama attended a ferociously anti-Israel event in honor of an anti-Israel academic, and merely offered a more moderate perspective in his speech than those who compared Israeli citizens to Osama bin Laden. We shall never know for sure what he said, however, for the Los Angeles Times mysteriously refused to release the tape after acknowledging that it had it.

President Obama's relationship with figures such as Khalidi and organizations such as the Arab American Action Network were not the only causes for concern. For example, there was the fact that he had attended the church of Jeremiah Wright — a well-known anti-Semite — for nearly two decades prior to running for President. There was the fact that he singled out Likud for criticism — the party of now-Prime Minister Netanyahu — despite the fact that Likud was not even in the governing coalition at the time. There was his promise to put daylight between the United States and Israel. Finally, there was is enthusiasm to improve our relations with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism — Iran — a desire that would prove to be a harbinger of things to come.

When in office, President Obama did veto the worst UN resolutions against Israel and continue to approve military aid to our staunchest ally. However, in other areas, President Obama's hostility was at best thinly concealed. He relentlessly hectored Israel over its settlement construction, but tended to be less interested in Palestinian terror. In fact, when he commented on Palestinian terror, it was usually to urge “both sides” to show restraint, a practice that should have been left in the dustbin after President George W. Bush boldly stood with Israel when it was the victim of terror attacks. President Obama jeopardized the security of Israel and the world with his reckless Iran deal, and smeared Prime Minister Netanyahu when he dared oppose it. President Obama's support for Israel during its two wars in Gaza was tepid, at best, and he had Secretary of State John Kerry offer a Qatari-authored ceasefire proposal in the midst of the 2014 hostilities. For whatever it is worth, picking a Secretary of State who warns that Israel may become “an apartheid state” was a sign of things to come.[5]

President Obama has had a serious problem speaking to the threat of Islamist terror. In response to a 2015 terror attack in Paris where Islamist terrorists murdered four in a kosher deli, the President stated that “you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”[6] One can wonder about the President's sincerity or seriousness when an attempt to murder Jews at a kosher deli in the name of a specific interpretation of Islam is “random.” It is not at all inconceivable that had Hillary Clinton deviated from the President on this kind of feckless rhetoric, she would be preparing to take the oath of office in January instead of President-Elect Trump.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The depth of President Obama's conviction to knife Israel in the back becomes evident when one considers the consequences of his decision. There is no realistic way to undue the treacherous anti-Israel resolution passed on December 23, 2016, as there is no plausible way that such an effort would avoid a veto from the other four members of the Security Council. That leaves only one path available to the incoming Trump Administration, the United States Congress, and the Israeli Government: To strike back at the United Nations as an institution.

Already, leaders such as Senators Lindsey Graham [link], Ted Cruz [link], and Tom Cotton [link] are promising to worth together to lead the fight to defund the United Nations (and in Senator Cotton's case, to reassess U.S. involvement entirely), while Prime Minister Netanyahu is ordering a reassessment of Israel's ties to the world's foremost anti-Semitic body. On Twitter, President-Elect Trump stated, “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.” While some of us will not be sad to see the United Nations punished, this cannot be said to be the fantasy outcome for President Obama and his ilk. Yet, this shall be the inevitable consequence of President Obama's tantrum in his final month in office. It is astounding to see that a man who put so much faith in the United Nations and other international organizations would be willing to jeopardize their financial stability and the United States' future involvement to pass a resolution that will be ignored by his successor in less than a month.

President-Elect Trump's inauguration can now not come soon enough for Israel. However, despite the impending change of administration, Israel is not out of the woods yet. The Times of Israel reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu is wary that President Obama may try to push a United Nations vote on the principles of Palestinian statehood on his way out of office, a vote that would be arguably even more damaging than the President's decision on December 23.[7] The Prime Minister is looking to work with President-Elect Trump and the Congress to deter any further hostile actions by the Obama Administration. With President Obama now standing on the same side of key Israel issues as the Palestinian Authority (which has stated it will engage in a quixotic effort to use the resolution to drag hundreds of Israeli soldiers before the International Criminal Court), Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, President-Elect Trump and the Congress must make clear that the United Nations will face severe retaliation as soon as President-Elect Trump takes office if President Obama continues down his current path.[8]

When Trump takes office, it will be important for Democrats to work with Republicans in passing measures to defund the United Nations and to reassess our involvement in the body. It will also be important to have a strong and visible majority of Congress standing in support of Israel as it takes necessary actions to counteract the effects of President Obama's betrayal. Israel will reassess its involvement in the United Nations, consider how to proceed after the Palestinians in effect tore up the Olso Accords, and defend its citizens from an impending torrent of illegitimate proceedings in the International Criminal Court. Israel will be counting on unwavering support from the United States through this difficult period. I look forward to writing more about these issues going forward.

Pro-Israel Democrats who defended President Obama on Israel for eight years, and who work with clearly anti-Israel organizations masquerading as pro-Israel organizations such as “J Street,” ought to evaluate what went wrong over the previous eight years. In a blog post from the election season, I argued that my Republican Party should condemn anti-Israel figures in its ranks and defend against certain anti-Semitic elements of now President-Elect Trump's electoral base [see blog]. I stand by that article, but at the moment it is as clear now as it was then that the Democratic Party has a far more serious problem with anti-Semitism and general anti-Israel sentiment. It is incumbent on figures such as Senator Schumer to examine where the Party has gone wrong and to explain to voters how it will change going forward. Although I am a loyal Republican, seeing support for Israel once again become a non-partisan issue is far more important to be than petty party politics.

CONCLUSION

It is ironic that for all of the well-founded concerns about President-Elect Trump's relationship with Russia, it was President Obama who stood with Russia to slander Israel before the United Nations while President-Elect Trump stood with Israel. Israel and the Jewish people have endured far worse than the likes of President Obama. May he not let the White House door hit him on his way out of office.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. In quotes because this seems to be a popular way in the media to describe Prime Minister Netanyahu's justified outrage over President Obama's decision.
2. Times of Israel Staff, “Official: 'Rather ironclad' intel shows Obama behind UN vote,” timesofisrael.com, (Dec. 26, 2016)
3. Bayefsky, Anne, “Diplomatic terrorism at the UN, courtesy of President Obama,” foxnews.com, (Dec. 24, 2016)
4. McCarthy, Andrew, “The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama's Khalidi Bash Tape,” nationalreview.com, (Oct. 27, 2008)
5. Cohen, Ted and Elise Labott, “Kerry's apartheid remark hits pro-Israel nerve,” cnn.com, (Dec. 26, 2016)
6. Chumley, Cheryl, “Obama outrages by calling 4 Jewish victims of Paris terror 'a bunch of folks' shot randomly, washingtontimes.com, (Feb. 10, 2015)
7. Times of Israel Staff, “Fearing UN vote on principles of Palestinian statehood, PM 'reaching out to Trump,'” timesofisrael.com, (Dec. 25, 2016)
8. Rasgon, Adam, “Palestinian leadership praises passing of UN resolution,” jpost.com, (Dec. 24, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com