Middle East Media Scope, LTD England and North Ireland (UK)
Immigration

Trump Could Deport Vietnamese Immigrants Who’ve Lived In The US For Decades, A New Report Says

A decade-old agreement protecting certain Vietnamese immigrants from deportation could soon change, according to a Wednesday report by The Atlantic. If the Trump administration moves forward on this, President Donald Trump could oversee the deportation of Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the U.S. before 1995, The Atlantic reported, even if they have lived in the country for decades. – Monica Busch (Bustle Mag)

After the Vietnam War, the United States did not re-establish formal diplomatic relations with Vietnam until 1995. The Trump administration is reportedly exploring options to deport certain Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the United States before that point. Bustle has reached out to the White House for comment.

A spokesperson for the U.S. embassy in Hanoi, who asked the magazine not to be identified because of embassy procedures, told The Atlantic that “the United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral agreement on removals in 2008 that establishes procedures for deporting Vietnamese citizens who arrived in the United States after July 12, 1995, and are subject to final orders of removal.”

However, they explained, “While the procedures associated with this specific agreement do not apply to Vietnamese citizens who arrived in the United States before July 12, 1995, it does not explicitly preclude the removal of pre-1995 cases.”

The Trump administration has reportedly reinterpreted the 2008 agreement, which was signed under President George W. Bush, to argue that Vietnamese immigrants who arrive before 1995 do not have special deportation protections. In other words, they can be prosecuted in the same way as any other immigrant, according to The Atlantic.

The administration had initially unveiled this interpretation of the agreement in 2017, but backed down from it earlier this year, The New York Times reported. According to the Atlantic report, however, the administration has since changed its mind again.

Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told the magazine that they “have 5,000 convicted criminal aliens from Vietnam with final orders of removal” and that “these are non-citizens who during previous administrations were arrested, convicted, and ultimately ordered removed by a federal immigration judge. It’s a priority of this administration to remove criminal aliens to their home country.”

Although it’s not clear when, exactly, the reinterpretation took place, DHS has confirmed that they did meet with representatives of the Vietnamese embassy in Washington, The Atlantic reported.

The reinterpretation would not apply to citizens or all legal immigrants, according to Vox. The several thousand people with deportation orders are most likely legal immigrants who have committed serious crimes, or else those who do not currently have legal authorization to be in the United States, Vox reported. If a Vietnamese immigrant has been in the United States since 1995 and still doesn’t have legal status, the outlet explains, it’s likely because he or she committed a crime which made them ineligible for it.The reported reinterpretation of the agreement, and potentially allowing for these deportations, is strongly in sync with the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policy, as well as its long-held America-first policy. The Atlantic report also comes as the president is embroiled in a battle with the legislative branch over the funding of a new and renovated U.S.-Mexico border wall. The president has repeatedly threatened to shut down the government if Congress is not able to pass a funding bill that includes money allocated to build the wall.

Middle East Media Scope, LTD England and North Ireland (UK)
Intelligence Agencies, KGB

“Cheka bags”, To Go Public Before Christmas

The files held by the KGB in Latvia, known colloquially as the  “Cheka bags”, will be published online before Christmas, the director of the Latvian National Archives, Māra Sprūdža, told Latvian Radio December 3.

That means that after more than two decades of debate and controversy about when, if and how the information contained in the files is released into the public sphere, the next three weeks will provide the answer.

According to Sprūdža, the Center for the Documentation of the Effects of Totalitarianism has forwarded to the National Archives of Latvia a full set of documents for publication of the Czech bag before the year-end deadline approved by Saeima earlier this year. 

“We have started to look at and experiment with the file contents to see if we can securely publish them and not have a situation in which people cannot get access, to make sure we have an optimal solution for people to easily open and view the contents,” Sprūdža told Latvian Radio.

Technical work is currently under way to ensure the information will be made public before Christmas, and will coincide with a virtual exhibition to place them in context.

In order to view the documents, registration via email address will be required on the Latvian National Archives website.

However, the full contents of the whole archive will not be available immediately. Initially only the KGB’s typed “agent cards”, the KGB telephone directory and official documents giving details of various administrative and procedural methods will be viewable.

Sprūdža predicted that public interest in the “Cheka bags” would be intense during the first days the contents appears online, but that some people might be disappointed that everything was not immediately available and searchable – with precise searches likely to be available only next May and before then further approval is required from the incoming government.

As previously reported by LSM, on October 4, the final sitting of the 12th Saeima supported amendments to the law which stipulated the publication on the Latvian National Archives website this year of several documents of the former KGB. Subsequently, it is planned to publish other documents related to the work of the KGB while Latvia was under Soviet occupation.

Middle East Media Scope, LTD England and North Ireland (UK)
Uncategorized

Getting Off the Treadmill to Catastrophe

Earlier this year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “[t]he Cold War is back…but with a difference. The mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past no longer seem to be present.”               ARMS CONTROL TODAY.  _ Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director

Indeed, the United States and Russia are planning to spend trillions of dollars to replace and upgrade their nuclear arsenals at force levels that far exceed what is required to deter nuclear attack. China is also improving its nuclear weapons capabilities. 

All three countries are pursuing new strategic-range weapons systems, including hypersonic missiles, and the weaponization of other emerging technologies, such as cyberweapons, that could upset the uneasy balance of nuclear terror that exists among the world’s major nuclear actors.

Meanwhile, U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreements designed to reduce nuclear risks, including the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), are in serious jeopardy. Currently, there is no bilateral dialogue on strategic stability to help avoid misperception and worst-case assumptions.

President Donald Trump, unfortunately, seems to believe that if he builds up the U.S. nuclear arsenal, other nations will back down. “Until people come to their senses, we will build it up,” Trump said to reporters Oct. 22 outside the White House. His simplistic notion of getting ahead in the nuclear game is a dangerous illusion.

In a nuclear arms race, the only finish line is catastrophe. As the veteran U.S. diplomat Paul Warnke wrote in 1975 as the United States and the Soviet Union were amassing new strategic nuclear weapons, “We can be first off the treadmill. That is the only victory the arms race has to offer.”

As Democrats prepare to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January, there is an opportunity to check and balance Trump’s nuclear impulses. Members of Congress of both parties, along with key U.S. allies and middle powers, should encourage the United States to get off the treadmill and take the first steps to reduce the role, size, and cost of its bloated nuclear arsenal.

Rather than ape Russia’s nuclear behavior, the United States should size and orient its nuclear force on the basis of its defense requirements alone. In 2013, a Pentagon review determined that the U.S. deployed strategic nuclear force is one-third larger than necessary to deter a nuclear attack. That means the United States can reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads from roughly 1,400 today to 1,000 or fewer and challenge Russia to do the same.

A thousand deployed warheads provide far more nuclear firepower than is needed to deter any current or potential nuclear adversary. Just one U.S. nuclear-armed submarine, carrying 192 thermonuclear warheads, each with an explosive yield of 100 kilotons or greater, could devastate a large country and kill tens of millions of people.

To lock in mutual reductions, Washington and Moscow should agree to extend New START for another five years, to 2026, and call for talks on a new agreement on new limits on all types of strategic offensive and defensive, nuclear and non-nuclear weapons systems that could affect strategic stability. Such a strategy could prompt Russia to rethink its own new weapons projects and possibly reduce its nuclear arsenal.

Further reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, which comprise 95 percent of global stockpiles, would increase pressure on China to halt its own slow but steady nuclear buildup and join the nuclear disarmament enterprise.

By scaling back its nuclear force to 1,000 deployed strategic warheads and making associated reductions to the hedge stockpile, the United States could trim billions of dollars from today’s excessive and unsustainable $1.2 trillion, 30-year plan to replace and upgrade its nuclear weapons delivery systems and warheads.

U.S. policymakers also need to shift away from outdated policies that increase the risk of nuclear war by accident or design. Current U.S. and Russian strategies call for the prompt launch of land-based missiles in the event of an impending nuclear attack. Each side also retains the option to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict. Worse still, the Trump administration wants new, “more-usable” low-yield nuclear weapons to counter Russia and has expanded the circumstances under which the United States would consider first use.

Instead, as Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, recommends, the United States should adopt a no-first-use nuclear policy, forgo new nuclear war-fighting weapons, and shed excessive nuclear force structure. There is no plausible circumstance that could justify legally, morally, or militarily the use of nuclear weapons to deal with a non-nuclear threat. Once nuclear weapons are employed in war, there is no guarantee the other side would not respond in kind and trigger an all-out nuclear exchange.

It is still within the power of U.S. and other world leaders to avoid a new global nuclear arms race, save billions of defense dollars on redundant and unnecessary nuclear weapons, and reduce the risk of nuclear use. The time to start is now.

Middle East Media Scope, LTD England and North Ireland (UK)
IT

5G Transponders Kill Hundreds Of Birds In Holland

5G refers to the “5th generation” wireless technology. Its intended purpose is to provide faster and higher capacity transmissions to carry the massive amount of data that will be generated from the Internet of Things (IoT), Smart Cities, driverless cars, and video streaming. No one is yet clear about how 5G will be achieved, so at present, it is being used more as a marketing term, although in Dec. 2017, industry announced that it has finally settled on specs or standards for 5G. 

WHAT IS 5G?

What is clear is that 5G will include the higher millimeter wave (MMW) frequencies never before used for Internet and Telecommunications technology. These waves do not travel as easily through buildings as the lower frequencies, so according to the original marketing scheme, 5G would require millions of new so-called “small cells” aka Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. But more recently, a number of wireless companies have stated that 5G signals can travel 3000 feet (over half a mile). Regardless, the wireless telecom industry is still aggressively seeking to outfit lampposts and utility poles around the country with wireless “small cell” antennas beaming hazardous radiation next to, or into our homes, 24/7.

In light of the robust and ever growing independent science showing adverse health effects from radiofrequency/microwave radiation, the densification of our neighborhoods with 5G-infrastructure may prove to be a very ill-conceived idea.

GLOBAL TERORRISM

Canada’s Welcome Mat for Jihadis Poses Threat to US

Canada’s welcome mat for jihadis — including returning ISIS terrorists as well as  numerous Islamists immigrants — is well known.  This not only threatens our northern neighbors but is an increasing threat to the U.S. as well. – Clarion Project

Some analyst believe it is only a matter of time before a major terror attack is carried out in the U.S. by jihadis based in Canada.

Watch the following eye-opening report on the infiltration of radical Islamists into Canada:

Uncategorized

Islamic Clerics Warn Against Spread of Christianity in the Most Islamic City in Iran

The Iranian Islamic government implemented a two fold plan to stop the spread of Christianity in the country, and it has failed on both fronts.
The first front was the allocation of millions of dollars for Islamic propaganda across the country, which over the years has proven to be ineffective as Iranian youth seem to be distancing themselves from the Islamic lifestyle the Iranian government wishes to spread.
The second front, in which the Iranian government’s Islamic agenda has failed is their crackdown campaign on newly converted Christians in order to plant fear in those who are interested in learning more about Christianity and possibly becoming Christians themselves. This failure is obvious as Iranian Islamic authorities continue to express their concern over the rapid growth of Christianity in the country.

via Islamic Clerics Warn Against Spread of Christianity in the Most Islamic City in Iran

PAKISTAN, Saudi Arabia

Saudization of Pakistan- Updated 2017

EXCERPT:  Pak-Saudi Military Nexus

Pervez Hoodbhoy

In December 2015, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announced plans for creating a military alliance along the lines of NATO. This came in the backdrop of KSA having failed to deter the United States from pursuing a nuclear deal with archrival Iran. Pakistan has been roped into this thirty-four country all-Sunni Saudi-led effort albeit somewhat reluctantly and after first denying that it was part of the alliance. Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi Foreign Minister, and Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the deputy crown prince and Defense Minister, traveled to Islamabad one month later to meet the civilian and military leadership.

The relation between Pakistan and KSA goes back many decades. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Sultan was on the mark when, speaking about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he said: “It’s probably one of the closest relationships in the world between any two countries.” Both countries are Sunni and conservative; both have ruling oligarchies (though one is dynastic and the other military). They were the first to recognize and support the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Their respective relationships to the U.S. share a strong similarity: Pakistanis and Saudis strongly resent what they see as a master-client relationship. Pakistan has a long history of dispatching its soldiers to protect the Saudi royal family and its interests. Thousands of Pakistani troops were garrisoned there in the 1980s and during the 1991 U.S.-led Gulf War. In 2013, KSA proffered a “gift” of $1.5 billion to ease Pakistan’s balance of payments crisis.13

In the 1970’s, major funding for Pakistan’s nuclear program had come from Saudi Arabia; it is said that suitcases of cash were brought into Pakistan from Saudi Arabia (as well as Libya). In gratitude, Bhutto renamed the city of Lyallpur as Faisalabad (after King Faisal of Saudi Arabia). The Pak–Saudi–U.S. jihad in Afghanistan was to further cement Pak–Saudi relations. Madrassas belonging to the Wahabi–Salafi school of thought exploded in numbers and enrolment. After India had tested its bomb in May 1998 and Pakistan was mulling over the appropriate response, the Kingdom’s grant of 50,000 barrels of free oil a day helped Pakistan decide in favour of a tit-for-tat response and cushioned the impact of sanctions subsequently imposed by the U.S. and Europe.14The Saudi Defense Minister, Prince Sultan, was a VIP guest at Kahuta, where he toured its nuclear and missile facilities just before the tests. Years earlier Benazir Bhutto, the then serving prime minister, had been denied entry. Pakistani leaders, political and military, frequently travel to the Kingdom to pay homage.

The quid pro quo for the Kingdom’s oil largesse has been soldiers, airmen, and military expertise. Saudi officers are trained at Pakistan’s national defense colleges and the Pakistan Air Force, with its high degree of professional training, helped create the Royal Saudi Air Force. Pakistani pilots flew combat missions using Saudization of Pakistan – Saudi jets against South Yemen in the 1970s. Saudi Arabia is said to have purchased ballistic missiles produced in Pakistan.

 

In early 2015, the Saudis requested Pakistan to join it in fighting allegedly Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. In its attempt to rally Sunni support, the Kingdom wants the Yemen war to be seen as a doctrinal issue. Iran today is challenging Saudi hegemony in the Middle East. It is an insurrectionary, revolutionary power while Saudi Arabia wants the status quo. Iran’s mullahs openly call for the overthrow of all monarchies. In their political model the Iranian clergy holds the reins of power, with some marginal space allocated for the expression of popular opinion. But any political freedom, no matter how small, is anathema to the Kingdom. It is deeply alarmed that Iran’s support for the Palestinians, and its staunch opposition to US-led wars in the Middle East, has resonated with Arab public opinion even in Sunni majority countries.

Given Pakistan’s past obedience, Saudi Arabia was quite shocked when Pakistan’s Parliament unanimously voted in April 2015 to decline a military role in the coalition. Worn out by an internal Taliban insurgency that has claimed upwards of 60,000 lives, and wracked by a series of targeted assassinations and bombings of Shia mosques, the country was in no mood for a potentially disastrous overseas adventure.

It was overstretched at home and unwilling to pick sides between a “brotherly” Saudi Arabia and a “neighborly” Iran. Tension with Iran would be bad on several counts especially since the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, which has been largely constructed, could greatly reduce Pakistan’s severe energy deficit. Moreover, with a twenty to thirty percent population of Shias, it cannot afford yet more killings carried out by Saudi supported Sunni groups.

Interestingly, the only street demonstrations in support of joining the Saudi-led coalition were by the officially banned violent sectarian-militant group, the Sipah-e-Sahaba, now rechristened as Ahl-e-Sunnat- wal-Jamaat. Long the recipient of Saudi benevolence, ASWJ blasted the parliament’s decision and staged public rallies urging Pakistan’s intervention in Yemen.

Arab anger at Pakistan is partly understandable. Nawaz Sharif and his government had given the Arabs an impression that his country stands at their beck and call. So, on the one hand, they pampered the egos of Saudi despots and gratefully accepted their favors, including the mysterious “gift” of $1.5 billion dollars in March 2014.

Was there to be no quid pro quo?  Then, various Pakistani leaders raised Arab expectations further with loud declarations promising to “shed every drop of our blood” for the defense of Haram-ul- Sharafein (keepers of the holy places) when, in fact, no Muslim holy site was ever threatened. But, when it came to putting boots on the ground in what would be a long-drawn bloody civil war, they had backed off.  To soothe an irritated Saudi septuagenarian monarch and his angry princes, an entourage consisting of the prime minister, chief of army staff, minister for defense, foreign secretary, and an assemblage of high officials went hoping that their contrite expressions could somehow calm Arab anger. There was no indication of success. Pakistan’s “disobedience” might have been more forgivable had it not come at this particular moment, when the Saudis are already in a state of fury over the action of their long-time ally, the United States. A preliminary Iran-US nuclear deal, which the Kingdom has long feared and opposed, has already been signed. Although staunch anti-Iran and pro-Israel Republicans in the US Congress strained every nerve to block it, President Obama succeeded in pushing through the final version in 2015.

The Saudi nightmare remains that an Iran-US rapprochement will accept Iran as a threshold nuclear state, and end US-imposed sanctions. Iran would then appear as the victor, giving a big blow to the Saudi-led Sunni coalition, of which Israel is an honorary member.

Expectedly, the GCC Arabs were in no mood to listen to lame excuses from a dependent country. Employed mostly as domestic help, wage laborers, construction workers, and restaurant employees, millions of Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Nepalese and Filipinos in the Gulf sustain their families back home by scrimping and saving their precious riyals.

This left UAE’s minister of state for foreign affairs, Dr. Anwar Mohammad Gargash, flabbergasted: how could one such country actually dare to choose neutrality in an “existential confrontation” with Iran. Pakistan, he threateningly said, would “pay the price”.

Pakistan eventually did join the all-Sunni thirty-four country Saudi-led alliance in early 2016. But it has not participated – at least openly – in the Saudi war on Yemen. While it fears Saudi anger, it knows that kicking out Pakistani workers is not a realistic option for the Kingdom. Nationals of all Gulf countries live in a work-free country and are hopelessly poor in skill and working habits. Moreover they are in no hurry to change – it remains to be seen whether the oil glut and drop of prices will significantly impact that. Without an adequate supply of hard-working and underpaid servants, every petro-country would grind to a halt.

A second reason also sharply limits the strength of Saudi reaction. Pakistan is the only country that can, at short notice, potentially provide the Kingdom with nuclear weapons, or with a nuclear umbrella. Of course, Pakistan would be wise in not even considering such a possibility. But the fact is that there are no other nuclear vendors in town – and the Saudis know it.

Read Full Report Saudization-of-Pakistan-updated

Uncategorized

Trump Could Deport Vietnamese Immigrants Who’ve Lived In The US For Decades, A New Report Says

A spokesperson for the U.S. embassy in Hanoi, who asked the magazine not to be identified because of embassy procedures, told The Atlantic that “the United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral agreement on removals in 2008 that establishes procedures for deporting Vietnamese citizens who arrived in the United States after July 12, 1995, and are subject to final orders of removal.”https://middleeastscopeltd.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/trump-could-deport-vietnamese-immigrants-whove-lived-in-the-us-for-decades-a-new-report-says/

Uncategorized

Getting Off the Treadmill to Catastrophe

U.S. policymakers also need to shift away from outdated policies that increase the risk of nuclear war by accident or design. Current U.S. and Russian strategies call for the prompt launch of land-based missiles in the event of an impending nuclear attack. Each side also retains the option to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict.