More On `Operation Iraqi Asylum`: Now They're Invading Us!
Print Friendly and PDF

[See also: 12/26/05 - Why Haven't You Heard Of "Operation Iraqi Asylum"]

As the war in Iraq grinds on, its little-known home-front counterpart— Operation Iraqi Asylumthe 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 media.

Since posting the story on December 26, the 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 conundrum:

"The 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!"

Well 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.

So even with American boots on the ground in Iraq, the asylum and refugee machine rolls on.

A 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."

Another reader sounded off with these e-mailed comments on December 26:

"[A]ll 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 questions asked.

"I have 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 am a 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."

"Those who entered after 2002 use the lack of stability or Christian claim. And, guess what! Iraqis are STILL making it across our borders!

Well done. This 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 carpet.

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 is the Iraqi's tale: "Two Years and Counting...Security Checks and Processing Delays Keep Asylee and Spouse Separated."

The 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)."

"Mrs. 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. …

Mrs. B 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 separated."

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 the 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.

On the question of whether the U.S. "owes" asylum to the Iraqis if things really go bust in Mesopotamia, a reader wrote on December 27:

My 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 Foreign Office.

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 to give them asylum since we started the war."

I also received comments from a 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 reader wrote via e-mail on January 3:

 I 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." [ Note: 'Camp of the Saints' author Jean Raspail . . . call your office!]

"I 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 considered "good 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."

["The UNHCR, Egypt and the refugees that weren't," New York Times News Service, Cairo, December 27, 2005, published in the TaipeiTimes.]

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 Administration's answer.

Juan Mann [email him] is an attorney and the proprietor of He writes a weekly column for and contributes to Michelle Malkin's Immigration BLOG. 

Print Friendly and PDF