ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


中文移民日报




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Blogging: CIS Uses Boston Attack to Condemn Asylum, Immigration System by Jason Dzubow

  1. #1

    Blogging: CIS Uses Boston Attack to Condemn Asylum, Immigration System by Jason Dzubo




    Bloggings on Political Asylum

    by

    Jason Dzubow









    CIS Uses Boston Attack to Condemn Asylum, Immigration System





    The “low immigration, pro-immigrant” group Center for Immigration Studies claims
    that the “United States has naturalized at least a few thousand alleged
    terrorists in recent years.” As evidence for this dramatic claim, CIS lists
    exactly four (four!) examples of naturalized foreigners who engaged (or
    attempted to engage) in terrorist acts, including Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who
    is charged in the Boston Marathon bombing.


    Hmm... There's something strange about this naturalization ceremony.

    Hmm… There’s something strange about this Naturalization ceremony.



    How CIS got from four alleged terrorists to “thousands” is not
    explained. Although I often disagree with CIS’s conclusions, I’ve found
    them to be generally reliable when it comes to the facts. Not so in this
    case. To make such an outrageous and inflammatory claim with almost no
    evidence casts doubt on the organization’s credibility.


    Concerned about the possibility of major immigration reform, is CIS
    becoming unhinged? Will they–like so many partisan groups–make all sorts
    of unsubstantiated claims in the hope of getting their way (i.e.,
    killing immigration reform)?


    It seems that in many of our country’s policy debates, the end
    justifies the means. “Swiftboating” has replaced reasoned debate. I hope
    that CIS won’t go down this road. Like I say, I often disagree with
    CIS, but I recognize the need for different voices in the conversation.
    For those voices to make a positive impact, however, they must be
    grounded in reality. CIS should correct their unfounded claim that the
    U.S. has “naturalized at least a few thousand alleged terrorists,” and
    issue an apology.


    With that as background, I want to turn briefly to CIS’s testimony on
    Capitol Hill. This past Monday, Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of
    CIS testified
    about the proposed immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary
    Committee. He spoke about the Tsarnaev family who–he said–immigrated to
    the United States a decade ago after receiving political asylum. Mr.
    Krikorian asked:


    Why were they given asylum since they had
    passports from Kyrgyzstan and, especially, why were they given asylum
    since the parents have moved back to Russia, the country supposedly they
    were fleeing and wanted asylum from?


    A few points. Maybe this is an immigration-lawyer-geek point, but by
    definition, no one immigrates to the U.S. after receiving political
    asylum. It is only possible to obtain political asylum if you are
    already present in the United States. In the case of the Tsarnaev
    family, events are a bit unclear. It appears
    that the father came as a non-immigrant to the United States in 2002
    with Dzhokhar, and then applied for–and received–political asylum.
    Afterward, he brought his wife and minor children (including alleged
    bomber Tamerlan) to the United States. Maybe this is a geek point, but
    if I were from an immigration organization testifying before Congress, I
    would want to get the law and terminology correct.


    Second, I do not know how Mr. Krikorian knows that the Tsarnaev
    family had passports from Kyrgyzstan. As far as I know, the family were
    Russian citizens, and the father was originally from Chechnya, which is
    part of Russia. While it appears that at least the younger brother was
    born in Kyrgyzstan, this does not necessarily mean that he had a Kyrgz
    passport or was a citizen of that country (unlike the U.S., many
    countries do not automatically confer citizenship on people born within
    their territory). Assuming that the father had Kyrgz citizenship, he
    would not have qualified for asylum unless he demonstrated that he had a
    well-founded fear of persecution in Kyrgyzstan or that he was not
    firmly resettled in that country. As of now, we do not know why the
    father received asylum from Russia, let alone from Kyrgyzstan. Suffice
    it to say that the human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan is no picnic,
    and that country has produced several hundred thousand refugees.
    While Mr. Krikorian’s question (why was the family given asylum if they
    had passports from Kyrgyzstan?) is reasonable, the implied answer (that
    the family should not have received asylum) is pure speculation.


    Finally, Mr. Krikorian asks why the family received asylum since the
    parents have moved back to Russia, the country supposedly they were
    fleeing. Again, the implication is that the family should not have
    received asylum. Mr. Krikorian does not answer his own question, and
    indeed, we do not know why the father returned to Russia. Maybe he felt
    that conditions had improved and it would be safe for him to return.
    Maybe the father was more concerned with his children’s safety than his
    own, and so once his children were safely in the U.S., he decided to
    return. Or maybe–as Mr. Krikorian implies–the asylum case was fraudulent
    from the beginning. At this point, we don’t know. And while I agree
    that we need to explore all aspects of the brothers’ history, I am not
    sure that the investigation is well served by cynical assumptions that
    the father’s asylum claim was false.


    As I have said, I often disagree with CIS, but I believe they (and
    other restrictionist groups) have an important role to play in the
    current discussion about immigration and asylum reform. I just believe
    that the debate–and the credibility of CIS–would be better served if the
    organization speculated a little less, and got the facts right a little
    more.


    Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com.









    About The Author




    Jason Dzubow's practice focuses on immigration law, asylum, and appellate litigation. Mr. Dzubow is admitted to practice law in the federal and state courts of Washington, DC and Maryland, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Eleventh, and DC Circuits, all Immigration Courts in the United States, and the Board of Immigration Appeals. He is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the Capital Area Immigrant Rights (CAIR) Coalition. In June 2009, CAIR Coalition honored Mr. Dzubow for his Outstanding Commitment to Defending the Rights and Dignity of Detained Immigrants.In December 2011, Washingtonian magazine recognized Dr. Dzubow as one of the best immigration lawyers in the Washington, DC area; in March 2011, he was listed as one of the top 25 legal minds in the country in the area of immigration law. Mr. Dzubow is also an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University in Virginia.






    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.

  2. #2
    Actually, Kirkorian is correct. The father and son entered the U.S. and applied for asylum. It was granted and the rest of the family most likely entered based on their being named on the father's asylum application. Once that is approved those on the application, spouse and children get approved for derivative asylum status. They don't get refugee status, they don't get an immigrant or non-immigrant visa. They enter based on the approved application for the primary applicant.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-21-2013, 10:34 AM
  2. Blogging: Immigration Reform for Asylum Seekers, Part One by Jason Dzubow
    By ImmigrationDaily in forum Immigration Daily
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2013, 11:35 AM
  3. Blogging: Russia Angered by UK Asylum Grant by Jason Dzubow
    By ImmigrationDaily in forum Immigration Daily
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-06-2013, 01:57 PM
  4. Blogging: New Novel Explores The Lives Of Asylum Seekers by Jason Dzubow
    By ImmigrationDaily in forum Immigration Daily
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2013, 02:42 PM
  5. 2nd Attack From Boston
    By Michael in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2004, 10:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: