Must. happen. now. Writing this up on the Change.org blog

A Refugee Corps is already forming informally in asylum-seeking centers: Egypt, Uganda, Thailand, etc. It would be amazing to see if they could spring up as a professional track for American specialists. Combined with a defensive repair of human rights spoils (closing Guantanamo, banning torture, etc), an offensive approach to human rights support would be extraordinary.

But, there is the question of whether it would drain indigenous human rights defenders around the globe if they were offered resettlement in the US?

A Refugee Corps is already forming informally in asylum-seeking centers: Egypt, Uganda, Thailand, etc. It would be amazing to see if they could spring up as a professional track for American specialists. Combined with a defensive repair of human rights spoils (closing Guantanamo, banning torture, etc), an offensive approach to human rights support would be extraordinary.

But, there is the question of whether it would drain indigenous human rights defenders around the globe if they were offered resettlement in the US?

Better yet. . . let's cut the quota entirely. . .

Right now, it's not even the numbers in the quota that are causing the problem. The government doesn't even fill the quota of 70,000. The reason is bureaucracy. Between the Dept of Homeland Security, State Dept, UN and NGOs, there is more red tape than anyone can keep track of.

That's why we need a Refugee Corps, part of the government, to actually be able to process these cases in an organized logical way.

And we need to spread this idea to as many constituencies as possible. Refugee resettlement brings together humanitarians, religious groups, human rights advocates, and others. And it can be a central part of our foreign policy.

Keep spreading this idea to everyone you know.

refugee corps already exists and is comprised largely of young folks returning from the peace corps. it's too small at this point though, around 40 people I think. read more about it here:

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/refugee_affairs_division.pdf

That's true - in terms of use of the name. And the people may be very good, though this "corps" really was just a re-organization of offices when the INS because the CIS. But what we're talking here about a much more vigorous and bold refugee program.

Partly this requires a much larger corps to process more cases. But it also requires more streamlining, reducing the entangling of two differnent federal departments (State and DHS). Where I work in the Middle East, US embassies cannot actually approve refugee cases no matter how urgent - though they grant tourist and student visas all the time. Instead they had to wait for DHS refugee officers to visit. We can fix this.

But the biggest change is that this should be a publicly visible government program, more like the real Peace Corps as originally conceived. It should not just be a bureaucratic reorganization. It should be a strategic change in how the US approaches refugee policy. It should be a pillar of our foreign policy generally.

I agree with most everything you say, especially about the streamlining. It's not just DHS and State, but UNHCR, IOM and all of the NGOs and private contractors running the OPEs who are part of the process. And once the refugee lands in the US they're subject to various health and human services agencies, at both the state and federal level, along with the resettlement agencies that contract with State. God forbid ICE gets involved...

But the current refugee corps is not just a product of the 2003 reorganization-- it had not existed in any form prior. Initially, in 03-05, it was solely legacy INS officers with bureaucratic baggage but most of them have transferred out as familial obligations don't allow for the constant travel. You're also seeing more officers with law degrees who sign up, by choice or due to the contraction of the legal market.

Still, I like the idea of making the corps bigger and more visible. This is a necessary condition for a significant increase in refugee admissions, something I hope (without hard evidence, yet) will be a goal of the Obama (+Clinton/Napolitano) administration.

As an AmeriCorps VISTA working with resettled refugee youth, I can't emphasize enough the need to support refugees.

There are some physician groups that currently provide physical exams to support affidavits for refugees entering the legal system to seek asylum (e.g. Doctors of the World, Physicians for Human Rights). I have done a couple of those exams and it is a humbling experience. And there are a small few medical centers with facilities and professionals to treat victims of torture. Detention centers in the US often hold asylum seekers essentially like prisons in the very place they seek refuge - this issue obviously also needs to be addressed before offering new refugees any hope of asylum here. Interested physicians should be offered a role in the new Refugee Corps

I think the Corps is going to need lawyers, doctors, social workers - but the point that I am really glad people are emphasizing is that it needs to not have a routine bureaucratic face. It needs to represent the purpose of the program.

Part of that is that we also need to bring in religious organizations, groups from left and right. That's something that in my career I've found great about the refugee issues, at least in the US. There are opponents of immigration who oppose refugees, but for the most part you can find supporters of refugees across the political spectrum. In the Middle East and Africa, refugees would be a lot worse off if not for several key Christian organizations. And there are all kinds of groups in the US who help refugees once they arrive. They need more support. We need to not just build a revitalized corps, but also a political coalition to support it, and to keep making the case that this is part of what the United States is supposed to represent in the world.

That's why an important part of our proposal is to allow private sponsorships of refugees, as Canada and Australia already allow. Many Americans who spend a brief time abroad meet refugees in limbo they would like to help, but our laws don't allow them to help in the most logical way. Churches and synagogues and mosques in the US should be able to sponsor refugees. Letting individual Americans be a direct part of a positive foreign policy is one of the best ways to keep it going politicially, and to break through some of the red tape that holds the current refugee program back.

This shouldn't be just a call to help refugees, but also for Americans to ask to be part of the process.

 

It would be a terrible idea to simply increase the quota without drastically expanding the support system provided to refugees arriving in the US. One of the largest groups coming to the US now is the Karen from Burma (via refugee 'warehouses' in Thailand).  These are not usually educated, elite individuals fleeing political persecution - they are farmers who, by and large, do not speak English and lack any formal job training. The arrival process needs to be significantly improved through expanded government oversight over the non-governmental agencies that handle the resettlement process, as well as a 3-month intensive English and job-training program established for those refugees who need it.

I think we should add a component of greater support for settlement on the US side to the proposal. It's also a great way to bring more people in to the process.

 I think this idea is long overdue. While I am very critical about the issue of ILLEGAL immigration, I believe providing an expedited process for immigration (asylum) of people whose lives are at risk (refugees),along with USA community support,  is part of being "American". We seem to be woefully lax in our responsibility towards our Iraqi allies, many who now face imminent death in their nation as a direct result of their willingness to assist the USA in the current conflict. And of course anyone at risk of genocide or political torture should be protected as well. If we kicked out the average "illegal", we'd have that many more slots and $ for the people that desperately need it.

This is so true! Also lets keep those who are already here!

I supported your idea, please support this one.

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/pass_the_dream_act_now

Thank you

I dissagree.
These "refugee" and "asylum" programs are loaded with scams!
Vietnamese and other "refugees" came here in the 80's and after being here for 3-5 years and accumulating money went back to those countries ***on vacations!*** WT Hell!
Also, the Russian Mafia uses those "T" visas to smuggle women into the U.S. for big money, $25,000 each!
They then put them into an apartment and the police receive the *anonymous phone call* and voila, "T" visas for all compliments of the idiots at the State Dept.
One guess who came up with the "T" Visa program; Immigration Lawyers!!!
The Geneva Conventions says that once the situation in a country "stabilises" the "refugees" from that country can then be repatriated back to their home countries.
We *STILL* have 300,000 - 500,000 "refugees" in the U.S. from Bosnia and Kosovo and there hasn't been any fighting there in years! Does anyone know when they'll be repatriated?
It's the same thing with some Cent. American countries and Hurricane Mitch in 1998, they're *STILL* here after a Hurricane ten years ago!
Those people need to leave!
These programs are *Totally* out of control!
They are *supposed* to be *Temporary* programs!
None of them should lead to permanent residence!
And never to U.S. Citizenship!
It's not right nor fair that the U.S. should be taking in "refugees" everytime there's trouble in some foreign country.
Just like any other "government program" they've gotten way out of control!

ESPECIALLY when our country is responsible for them being refugees.

To all those who think that immigrants are taking our resources and to all those who think these programs are "loaded with scams".

First immigrants boost the economy, because they are exploided they make things cheaper.  It's still fair to them in most cases because they have the op to come here (in many cases) for a better life style.  Let us understand that we are talking about refugee immigrants in this case. 

Second, yes there are scams.  But these created by those praying on the refugess, not by the refugees themselves.  For the refugees that lie or do whatever they can to get here, it is because they sincerely need and want to come here.  The present situation makes it near imposible for anyone to get refugee status.  Yes, in spite of that there are thousands (this is a very small percent).  Yes, they create certain problems in our already suffering society, but they also create solutions and offer much back to society as well.  We have to look at how we can do better handling more refugees, but by limiting the problems, rather by handling them better.

You sure seem to be free with other people's money. You encourage the government to open the borders and ship people in here by the ship loads but we have to pay for their health care, to educate their kids, when they start bringing their relatives in, etc. I would like to know how much lower my taxes would be if we didn't have to pay for all this crap. Please, reconsider or repark your head.

This country was founded in large part by refugees fleeing persecution - all the way back to the 1600s. If we deny this legacy we might as well just tear down the Statue of Liberty.

I think this is a really great idea. I think that Rep. Chris Smith (NJ) and Sen. Brownback (KS) would be interested in promoting this and giving it some bipartisan support.