US is willing to take in Rohingya boat people

[Docno]

I don't know if the US needs any more Muslims or not, but it appears that these Muslims need the US.

They will be screened to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant -- in this case those coming from Myanmar will almost all be refugees. They will receive medical evaluations and then there will be a selection process for resettlement. Prior to being resettled, they will be given some cultural orientation to assist with their adjustment. They will be assigned to various NGO's throughout the country to aid in housing, jobs etc..

Those with criminal backgrounds won't be allowed resettlement in the US or most other countries.

They will eventually get situated, get passports and then return to their home country for visits to family and friends and the pressure will mount on Myanmar to start treating them right.

In the meantime, the UN should be (and I assume will) put pressure on Myanmar to clean up its act.

The number of people who are allowed to immigrate to the US is set by Congress I believe, and the Executive branch has to set the refugee numbers within that limit. Any one who can enter as an immigrant (as opposed to a refugee), must do so. That means if they have family in the US, they will enter as an immigrant and not as a refugee.

"They will be screened to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant -- in this case those coming from Myanmar will almost all be refugees."

You may be right ... this may be the determination. But the validity of it is arguable. Romany, for example, face violence and persecution in Eastern Europe, but most of them are motivated by economic factors when they make their way to places like Canada.

"Those with criminal backgrounds won't be allowed resettlement in the US or most other countries. "

How will that work, exactly? Is there some sort of international database of criminal records that Myanmar feeds into? Look, I have two friends (well, one friend and one acquaintance) who have done jail time in Myanmar. One ended up in jail for honking his car horn on a street in Yangon ... happened to be outside of the house of a VIP. The other was arrested for bringing back badly needed medicine from India that wasn't available in Chin State - her family almost went bankrupt to pay for her release (yes, that's how it works there). So just how are the American authorities going to determine who is a criminal or not? And if they are expecting the Burmese to help, remember that they want to be rid of the Rohingya .... so the obvious answer from Yangon will be "nope, not a criminal or extremist among them - thanks for your generosity".

"They will eventually get situated, get passports and then return to their home country for visits to family and friends and the pressure will mount on Myanmar to start treating them right."

Really? You do know, right, that there are large swaths of Myanmar that foreigners are not allowed to visit? I know there have been travel restrictions in Rakhine State, though I don't know where they stand at the moment. Regardless, you will have people applying for visas with American passports and Bengali names ... you really think those visas will be forthcoming?

Finally, do be aware that there is an active Islamist insurgency in Rakhine and that they have had high level contacts in the past with Al Queda and the Taliban (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_Solidarity_Organisation). With ISIS sympathisers starting to appear in SE Asia, who knows where all this will lead and whether there might be any extremists among these migrants.

[sdanielmcev]

Reminds me of the Cuban boat lift. And, yes, the US let in all the criminals, too. The idea that Muslims integrate well into American society is absurd. Many state legislatures are introducing legislation banning sharia law, which in Muslim enclaves is being enforced. So, no, the US should not allow them in.

[RT555]

why is it always the US? Where are all the others? Oh Europe is taking care of their 8% Muslim population. Will be 35% in 25 years.Hope I'm dead by then, while Europe is SLEEPING ON IMMIGRATION.

[MAJIC]

I feel sorry for them, but does the US need any more Muslims during these troubling times?

No they don't! but they are always first in line when it comes to those that need humanitarian help!

often they are denigrated for even that!

[simple1]

why is it always the US? Where are all the others? Oh Europe is taking care of their 8% Muslim population. Will be 35% in 25 years.Hope I'm dead by then, while Europe is SLEEPING ON IMMIGRATION.

You are misrepresenting the Pew Research forward estimates on Muslim populations. Pew forecast approx 30%+ Muslim population worldwide, with approx 10% Muslim heritage population for whole of Europe.

[Mudcrab]

I don't know if the US needs any more Muslims or not, but it appears that these Muslims need the US.

They will be screened to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant -- in this case those coming from Myanmar will almost all be refugees. They will receive medical evaluations and then there will be a selection process for resettlement. Prior to being resettled, they will be given some cultural orientation to assist with their adjustment. They will be assigned to various NGO's throughout the country to aid in housing, jobs etc..

Those with criminal backgrounds won't be allowed resettlement in the US or most other countries.

They will eventually get situated, get passports and then return to their home country for visits to family and friends and the pressure will mount on Myanmar to start treating them right.

In the meantime, the UN should be (and I assume will) put pressure on Myanmar to clean up its act.

The number of people who are allowed to immigrate to the US is set by Congress I believe, and the Executive branch has to set the refugee numbers within that limit. Any one who can enter as an immigrant (as opposed to a refugee), must do so. That means if they have family in the US, they will enter as an immigrant and not as a refugee.

"They will be screened to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant -- in this case those coming from Myanmar will almost all be refugees."

You may be right ... this may be the determination. But the validity of it is arguable. Romany, for example, face violence and persecution in Eastern Europe, but most of them are motivated by economic factors when they make their way to places like Canada.

"Those with criminal backgrounds won't be allowed resettlement in the US or most other countries. "

How will that work, exactly? Is there some sort of international database of criminal records that Myanmar feeds into? Look, I have two friends (well, one friend and one acquaintance) who have done jail time in Myanmar. One ended up in jail for honking his car horn on a street in Yangon ... happened to be outside of the house of a VIP. The other was arrested for bringing back badly needed medicine from India that wasn't available in Chin State - her family almost went bankrupt to pay for her release (yes, that's how it works there). So just how are the American authorities going to determine who is a criminal or not? And if they are expecting the Burmese to help, remember that they want to be rid of the Rohingya .... so the obvious answer from Yangon will be "nope, not a criminal or extremist among them - thanks for your generosity".

"They will eventually get situated, get passports and then return to their home country for visits to family and friends and the pressure will mount on Myanmar to start treating them right."

Really? You do know, right, that there are large swaths of Myanmar that foreigners are not allowed to visit? I know there have been travel restrictions in Rakhine State, though I don't know where they stand at the moment. Regardless, you will have people applying for visas with American passports and Bengali names ... you really think those visas will be forthcoming?

Finally, do be aware that there is an active Islamist insurgency in Rakhine and that they have had high level contacts in the past with Al Queda and the Taliban (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_Solidarity_Organisation). With ISIS sympathisers starting to appear in SE Asia, who knows where all this will lead and whether there might be any extremists among these migrants.

Sign at Mo Gok - about 100k north of Mandalay

[Mudcrab]

I don't know if the US needs any more Muslims or not, but it appears that these Muslims need the US.

They will be screened to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant -- in this case those coming from Myanmar will almost all be refugees. They will receive medical evaluations and then there will be a selection process for resettlement. Prior to being resettled, they will be given some cultural orientation to assist with their adjustment. They will be assigned to various NGO's throughout the country to aid in housing, jobs etc..

Those with criminal backgrounds won't be allowed resettlement in the US or most other countries.

They will eventually get situated, get passports and then return to their home country for visits to family and friends and the pressure will mount on Myanmar to start treating them right.

In the meantime, the UN should be (and I assume will) put pressure on Myanmar to clean up its act.

The number of people who are allowed to immigrate to the US is set by Congress I believe, and the Executive branch has to set the refugee numbers within that limit. Any one who can enter as an immigrant (as opposed to a refugee), must do so. That means if they have family in the US, they will enter as an immigrant and not as a refugee.

"They will be screened to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant -- in this case those coming from Myanmar will almost all be refugees."

You may be right ... this may be the determination. But the validity of it is arguable. Romany, for example, face violence and persecution in Eastern Europe, but most of them are motivated by economic factors when they make their way to places like Canada.

"Those with criminal backgrounds won't be allowed resettlement in the US or most other countries. "

How will that work, exactly? Is there some sort of international database of criminal records that Myanmar feeds into? Look, I have two friends (well, one friend and one acquaintance) who have done jail time in Myanmar. One ended up in jail for honking his car horn on a street in Yangon ... happened to be outside of the house of a VIP. The other was arrested for bringing back badly needed medicine from India that wasn't available in Chin State - her family almost went bankrupt to pay for her release (yes, that's how it works there). So just how are the American authorities going to determine who is a criminal or not? And if they are expecting the Burmese to help, remember that they want to be rid of the Rohingya .... so the obvious answer from Yangon will be "nope, not a criminal or extremist among them - thanks for your generosity".

"They will eventually get situated, get passports and then return to their home country for visits to family and friends and the pressure will mount on Myanmar to start treating them right."

Really? You do know, right, that there are large swaths of Myanmar that foreigners are not allowed to visit? I know there have been travel restrictions in Rakhine State, though I don't know where they stand at the moment. Regardless, you will have people applying for visas with American passports and Bengali names ... you really think those visas will be forthcoming?

Finally, do be aware that there is an active Islamist insurgency in Rakhine and that they have had high level contacts in the past with Al Queda and the Taliban (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_Solidarity_Organisation). With ISIS sympathisers starting to appear in SE Asia, who knows where all this will lead and whether there might be any extremists among these migrants.

Sign at Mo Gok checkpoint about 100k north of Mandalay. A USA (or any other passport) might not help them go back to see their relatives.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Mudcrab

[Mudcrab]

One thing people do not seem to realise is that of all the ethnic groups that are welcomed to other countries as refugees most (historically) come from a culture where religion and politics are separated.

This does not apply to people of the Islamic faith. It is not just a religion but an absolute way of life - religion is politics and politics is religion, there is no delineation.

Many Muslims do of course obey the laws of the host country until there is a conflict with their religious beliefs - then their beliefs take precedence.

Many of the illegal immigrant supporters choose to ignore this when having the discussion.

Most groups can keep their religious or spiritual beliefs and obey the laws of their host country. Islam does not allow for this and this is where the problems start.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Mudcrab

[dexterm]

Reminds me of the Cuban boat lift. And, yes, the US let in all the criminals, too. The idea that Muslims integrate well into American society is absurd. Many state legislatures are introducing legislation banning sharia law, which in Muslim enclaves is being enforced. So, no, the US should not allow them in.

That is due to the prejudice of the state legislatures, probably whipped up by the hysteria created by the likes of Geller. There's quite an Islamophobic industry out there that costs a lot of money to maintain. Someone has a hidden agenda.

It's a bit weird being so paranoid about a mere 0.6% of the entire US population. But people full of hate will always need a bogeyman.

Congratulations to US for leading the way

[Berkshire]

No easy answer to this one. However, once word of this gets back to people in Rakhine, it's only going to motivate more to make the perilous journey in the hopes that they will be picked up and be able to live out the rest of their days in sunny California (whether or not that's the life waiting for them is irrelevant). Of course, this is also in the interest of the Myanmar authorities - they would like nothing more than to be rid of the Rohingya once and for all. So expect a whole lot of foot-dragging when it comes to dealing with the problem at the source. They can just sit back and let the US do the ethnic cleansing for them, as well-intentioned and honourable as it may be.

I'm not advocating letting people die at sea. But I do wonder and worry about the incentives that are being created here. In this vein, I highly recommend this classic article: On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B (http://www.ou.edu/russell/UGcomp/Kerr.pdf). This decision by the US would be a perfect fit in an updated version of Kerr's piece.

Agree. The likely outcome is that more Rohingyas will be encouraged to make the journey, and Myanmar will be discouraged from taking any responsibility for their horrific actions. What I can't understand is why the world hasn't come down harder on Myanmar for creating this problem in the first place. Perhaps the word genocide has been overused to the point that no one gets worked up about it anymore.

[piersbeckett]

Stupid move by the US, spending our tax dollars to take care of Southeast Asia problems. Everyone wants to US to help. Screw these people, take care of your own. Where is China now? You don't hear a damn word from them. Afraid they will upset their buddies in Myanmar

I disagree. We should truly be the melting pot, welcoming people, especially those in such plights as the Rohingya, ... I would genuinely like the US to live by the words "Send me your tired, your poor huddled masses." That is what made America great, and what will keep it great.

IMO, a great sentiment but, unfortunately, Muslims do not melt, rather, they congeal, intent on pushing everything else, out of the pot; it's only too clear from their manifesto and their history. They are, in effect, 'another country', with it's own customs and laws. Of course, you can accommodate them along with the attendant surveillance, worry and fear but part of a melting pot, even with other factions, they ain't.

You might see them in your Utopian (American) dream but you're not in theirs. I think it was Bobby Dylan who said, "I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours" and I think you'd 'like to think' that that's the Muslim perspective too but evidence, in my view, points in the opposite direction.

Edited May 22, 2015 by piersbeckett

[maidee]

if they can survice the 3 week trip in their little boat on the way to the US ... just don't inform the navy and tell them, if they can swim ashore, like all those cubans did in florida, they can stay

[Scott]

I was involved in the resettlement of over 10,000 Iraqi Kurds that were taken to the US after Saddam Hussein's invasion of the no fly zone in Northern Iraq. Most were Muslim, but there were a few Christians in the mix. They were dispersed all over the US, primarily in about 15 different states for resettlement. Nearly all have done well, and adjust to the culture. Most stayed where they were resettled, but there has been some migration to be with other Kurds, but most moving has been done for jobs.

Rohingyas will be a little more challenging. They have poorer education standards and will require greater efforts toward integration, I believe. The people involved in resettlement have a better understanding of how many can be handled in a community. That includes making sure that one particular community isn't overwhelmed and starts to feel threatened by them or can't deal with the influx. Schools need to be equipped to handle dual language for a time etc..

As far as legal issues go. Honking your horn isn't exactly a felony and when countries are looking at criminals, they are looking at people who are breaking a law that is also a violation in the resettlement country. The UN has offices in Myanmar and can get information on refugees. Also camp mates are more than willing to drop information on criminals, so the UN knows what to look for. Do you think Myanmar is not going to paint them in the worst possible light as possible? They will and if anything, it will be overinflated criminal records rather than under reported ones.

The biggest impediment will probably be medical issues. Thinks like Tuberculosis, which will slow any resettlement process. But regardless, it takes a long time to screen people so they will be in camps for many months to years.

[MaxYakov]

History doesn't support that fear. Why wouldn't new Muslims in the USA integrate as well as the previous ones?

As an American Jew who knows about how shabby the US reaction was to helping Jews flee from Europe in the WW2 era, when I see a persecuted minority that is suffering real genocide, I want the USA to do better than that with them, Muslim or whatever.

The U.S. has an obligation to accept any "whatever" peoples based on what rationale exactly?

[Jingthing]

History doesn't support that fear. Why wouldn't new Muslims in the USA integrate as well as the previous ones?

As an American Jew who knows about how shabby the US reaction was to helping Jews flee from Europe in the WW2 era, when I see a persecuted minority that is suffering real genocide, I want the USA to do better than that with them, Muslim or whatever.

The U.S. has an obligation to accept any "whatever" peoples based on what rationale exactly?

No obligation. I never said they did.

[petey123]

if the world's wealthy countries want to take in "economic" migrants fleeing poverty, fine and dandy. but it seems unreasonable to expect thailandto accept the world's poor. the americans can better afford such largess than the thais: maybe the americans could remove some of the population stress in bangladesh, or mexico for that matter, or... (name your poor country).

[Jingthing]

I was only talking about people who are legitimately fleeing genocide, as are the Rohingya in Burma.

As far as economic migrants, most more developed countries can benefit from limited numbers of them (at least as guest workers) but that's always a matter of immigration politics.

[Docno]

I was involved in the resettlement of over 10,000 Iraqi Kurds that were taken to the US after Saddam Hussein's invasion of the no fly zone in Northern Iraq. Most were Muslim, but there were a few Christians in the mix. They were dispersed all over the US, primarily in about 15 different states for resettlement. Nearly all have done well, and adjust to the culture. Most stayed where they were resettled, but there has been some migration to be with other Kurds, but most moving has been done for jobs.

Rohingyas will be a little more challenging. They have poorer education standards and will require greater efforts toward integration, I believe. The people involved in resettlement have a better understanding of how many can be handled in a community. That includes making sure that one particular community isn't overwhelmed and starts to feel threatened by them or can't deal with the influx. Schools need to be equipped to handle dual language for a time etc..

As far as legal issues go. Honking your horn isn't exactly a felony and when countries are looking at criminals, they are looking at people who are breaking a law that is also a violation in the resettlement country. The UN has offices in Myanmar and can get information on refugees. Also camp mates are more than willing to drop information on criminals, so the UN knows what to look for. Do you think Myanmar is not going to paint them in the worst possible light as possible? They will and if anything, it will be overinflated criminal records rather than under reported ones.

The biggest impediment will probably be medical issues. Thinks like Tuberculosis, which will slow any resettlement process. But regardless, it takes a long time to screen people so they will be in camps for many months to years.

"As far as legal issues go. Honking your horn isn't exactly a felony and when countries are looking at criminals, they are looking at people who are breaking a law that is also a violation in the resettlement country. The UN has offices in Myanmar and can get information on refugees. Also camp mates are more than willing to drop information on criminals, so the UN knows what to look for. Do you think Myanmar is not going to paint them in the worst possible light as possible? They will and if anything, it will be overinflated criminal records rather than under reported ones. "

You're missing my point on the car-honking example... it was to show just how messed up the legal system is over there. I suspect the official charge didn't read 'car-honking that woke up a general' - more likely it read as something more threatening or sinister along the lines of aggravated assault. The Myanmar legal system was/is about as broken and cynical as a legal system can be, and I don't see how UN officials can get past all that to identify the real criminals from the people who just pissed off the wrong people. And if you're going to rely on camp-mate gossip and hearsay, well you're getting into dangerous territory with that. And finally, I really don't get your argument as to why the Myanmar authorities would "overinflate" the criminal records of the migrants when dealing with the UN. That would simply mean that they would be stuck with the most undesirable people among the Rohingya. If you think about it in terms of incentives, Myanmar has every reason to downplay the criminal past of the worst of the migrants because that would result in them being shipped overseas. You always need to look for the hidden incentives in systems - they're not always obvious.

[Berkshire]

Abbot: "The culprit is Burma ..."

Yes.