Fact Check: If You're a Refugee, Is It Easy to Slip into the US?
David Miliband has said that the hardest way into the US is to enter as a refugee. Is he correct?
David Miliband, former MP in the UK and current head of International Rescue Committee, caused a stir this weekend when he declared on television that “the toughest way to get into the US is as a refugee”. Citing this as his key objection to the Trump administration’s recent policy changes.
But is this a fact?
First, the process that he refers to is a long and arduous one. We break it down for you here.
To enter the United States as a refugee one must first be classified as a refugee; as designated by the UN, a US embassy, or certain NGOs. You must then be referred for possible resettlement in the USA.
You must then have an extensive interview with the State Department.
Then, undertake a series of 2-3 background checks in a row.
Here begins three rounds of fingerprinting and photo-taking. In order to facilitate cross-referencing with FBI and Homeland Security databases.
A possible extra review goes here, if the refugee in question is from an extra-unpleasant place, like Syria.
At this point an extensive face-to-face interview with a Homeland Security officer occurs.
The approval of the Department of Homeland Security must be granted for anything further to take place.
Medical checks and contagious disease screening.
Cultural orientation class.
Resettlement discussion and explanation of that process.
Another series of background checks across several US government agencies, as the process has taken place of a span of time that relevant data may have changed since step 3.
Final security check upon arrival in the USA.
Begin applying for a Green Card. The list of things needed to do that is too long for us to include here.
This series of actions can take “12 to 18 months on average”, not including steps 1 and 13, which can take years on their own.
While the difficulties of the American immigration system have been commented on before, both humorously and in all seriousness, this element of it is clearly as difficult, as thoroughly dedicated to knowing everything about you, and as dedicated to caution as any other part of the system.
For comparison, a person wishing to study in the United States can expect an F-1 visa to take less than 120 days, and has to undergo a much less intensive vetting process. Citizens of some nations don’t even require visas to get into the US at all.
So, was David Miliband correct with his statement? As a general finding, yes. Before you can enter the United States as a refugee you must undergo extensive background checks and a process long enough to make even the most patient of people go mad. As Big Think has shown before, the odds of a refugee causing you harm are low to say the least.
This is, in large part, because of the already extensive screening and vetting process that refugees have to pass through before they can enter the United States at all. The statement of Mr. Miliband is the fact.
Antimicrobial resistance is growing worldwide, rendering many "work horse" medicines ineffective. Without intervention, drug-resistant pathogens could lead to millions of deaths by 2050. Thankfully, companies like Pfizer are taking action.
- Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens are one of the largest threats to global health today.
- As we get older, our immune systems age, increasing our risk of life threatening infections. Without reliable antibiotics, life expectancy could decline for the first time in modern history.
- If antibiotics become ineffective, common infections could result in hospitalization or even death. Life-saving interventions like cancer treatments and organ transplantation would become more difficult, more often resulting in death. Routine procedures would become hard to perform.
- Without intervention, resistant pathogens could result in 10 million annual deaths by 2050.
- By taking a multi-faceted approach—inclusive of adherence to good stewardship, surveillance and responsible manufacturing practices, as well as an emphasis on prevention and treatment—companies like Pfizer are fighting to help curb the spread.
Are we trying to solve too many problem with technological solutions?
- Technology has given humanity the amazing ability to fix almost any problem, conditioning us to search for technological remedies to what might be social problems.
- Alleviating social inequity is a problem that technology must necessarily attempt to solve, but technology alone cannot shape how humans assemble their societies.
- Only by emphasizing the primary place of individual identity, human dignity, and universal values like empathy and emotion, can we hope to solve global issues that, so far, technology has been unable to conquer.
Radical Transformational Leadership: Strategic Action for Change Agents
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Long hidden under trees, it's utterly massive
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.