The Natural Resources Defense Council, which opposes the pipeline, says an analysis of those conditions found that the vast majority of them are identical to the minimum safeguards already written into the law:

An analysis of the fifty-seven ‘special conditions’ which the Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Administration (PHMSA) suggested reveals them for what they are – a public relations stunt taken at the public’s expense. It turns out that the majority of these conditions fall into three categories.

The first category includes twenty-eight conditions that repeat bare minimum safety standards that either PHMSA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or Canada already require TransCanada to comply with as a matter of law. This includes measures like meeting minimum strength requirements, putting down markers or inspecting the pipeline route at least twenty-six times a year.

The second category includes twelve conditions that TransCanada must take to ensure that Keystone XL isn’t actually operating below legal safety standards. For instance, testing to try to prevent problems with defective steel that were encountered with Keystone I. Or making sure that TransCanada isn’t using parts that aren’t rated for the pipeline’s operating pressure.

In the third category are the five conditions that require TransCanada to keep records and report to PHMSA its progress in complying with these voluntary ‘special conditions.’

That leaves a dozen conditions that actually differ in some way with minimum standards.

The New York Times reported last week that the PMHSA is unprepared to adequately regulate even the existing pipelines. The recent spill of 42,000 gallons of tar sands oil into the Yellowstone River took place only a few weeks after both the owner of the pipeline and the federal regulators certified that it was safe.

The AP has identified Kmiec’s writings on faith — specifically on abortion — as a potential reason for the State Department’s censure and Kmiec’s subsequent decision to resign. However, Kmiec, a former law professor at Pepperdine University and a lawyer in President Ronald Reagan’s administration, told the AP he was not pressured to tender his resignation, and furthermore, the report does not cite the contents of the ambassador’s writing as a reason for his censure.

The report by the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Office of Inspector General details an inspection of the Malta embassy, which partly took place in Washington, D.C., between September and October 2010 and in Valletta, Malta, between October and November 2010. Criticism of Kmiec, who was appointed to the post in 2009, focuses on the time the ambassador took away from his prescribed duties to write for U.S. and Malta publications, though one paragraph in particular has stood out to some reporters suggesting there’s more to the resignation than Washington has let on:

The Ambassador had been at post more than a year at the time of the inspection, and had achieved some policy successes. He is respected by Maltese officials and most mission staff, but his unconventional approach to his role as ambassador has created friction with principal officials in Washington, especially over his reluctance to accept their guidance and instructions. Based on a belief that he was given a special mandate to promote President Obama’s interfaith initiatives, he has devoted considerable time to writing articles for publication in the United States as well as in Malta, and to presenting his views on subjects outside the bilateral portfolio. He has been inconsistent in observance of clearance procedures required for publication. He also looks well beyond the bilateral relationship when considering possible events for the mission to host in Malta. His approach has required Department principals, as well as some embassy staff, to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing his writings, speeches, and other initiatives. His official schedule has been uncharacteristically light for an ambassador at a post of this size, and on average he spends several hours of each work day in the residence, much of which appears to be devoted to his nonofficial writings.

Prior to Kmiec’s resignation, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial charging: “Elements with the State Department are attempting to silence an American diplomat who believes he was personally charged by the White House with promoting President Obama’s interfaith initiatives.”

Like the AP, the LA Times editorial suggests Kmiec was criticized for his views, which align closer to the Roman Catholic Church than with the president, especially regarding abortion (Malta is an overwhelmingly Catholic country, where abortion and divorce are illegal.)

From the LA Times:

If all this sounds familiar, it’s because all bureaucrats share the spirit, if not the politics, of the commissar.

According to a source familiar with the situation who asked not to be named, Kmiec first found himself at odds with the State Department bureaucracy shortly after taking office, when Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell asked him to fill in at a U.N.-sponsored conference in Malta at which Mediterranean parliamentarians were to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli delegation walked out over the Palestinians’ characterization of the Gaza situation, and officials in Washington urged Kmiec to follow suit, or at least not to deliver a planned address. He reportedly replied that he would require instructions from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to do that, then delivered a forthright speech affirming Obama’s commitment to a two-state solution and Israeli security.

Since then, Kmiec has been harassed by officials at State over his outside writing, even when it involves personal matters of faith. A memorial piece on his father’s death for the Jesuit magazine America, for example, was so severely edited that it misrepresented the dead man’s views. He was prevented from writing about Ronald Reagan for these pages, and he has been forbidden to speak or write the words “faith-based diplomacy.” He also was forced to cancel a prestigious international conference on interfaith cooperation that he had organized.

The State Department recommended that the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs order Kmiec “to refocus attention on mission priorities and eliminate his use of embassy and Department resources on nonofficial writings.” Instead, Kmiec wrote letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama over the weekend, announcing his last day, Aug. 15.

In late January another of Obama’s appointed ambassadors, Cynthia Stroum resigned from her post as the ambassador of Luxembourg months after receiving a critical review — for personality conflicts and questionable travel and alcohol purchases — according to the AP, which points to the two incidents as an illustration of “the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint noncareer diplomats to ambassadorships, often as a reward for their political support.”

The move comes as Upton has been touting his conservative credentials in an effort to win the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Republicans have criticized Upton for being too moderate on environmental issues, with one of his opponents, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), leading the “not-conservative-enough” charge.

Environmentalists and a number of lawmakers have mounted a massive campaign to oppose the pipeline project, known as Keystone XL. And they have set their sights on recent remarks by Clinton that suggest the State Department will approve the project. But it’s not just Democrats who oppose the project; at least one Republican, Sen. Mike Johanns (Neb.), opposes it because it would go through his state.

In a letter to Clinton, Upton said:

Government is currently standing in the way of this $7 billion privately funded project, which is expected to stimulate $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy and spur the creation of 118,000 jobs. Our number one priority must be job creation, and this is a prime example of the over-burdensome regulatory system that is killing the private sector.  Government must stand back and allow the U.S. economy to rebound. If not we will continue to see our jobs go overseas.

The petition — signed by a slew of environmental groups in the U.S. and Canada like the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace — appears to target a massive proposed pipeline project that would run from Alberta, Canada to Texas. Environmental groups have mounted a campaign to stop the project, known as Keystone XL.

The petition reads:

We are calling, with one voice, for the Alberta and the Federal government to address the growing and at times deadly impacts tar sands tailing lakes have by immediately denying all proposals that would require the creation of new tailings lakes and by legislating the complete phase out of existing tailings lakes because of the on-going and potential danger they pose to bird, animal, plant, aquatic and human populations.

More than 350 birds that landed on a Canadian tar sands pond were found dead last week. In a blog post on the issue, NRDC’s Susan Casey-Lefkowitz wrote:

The tar sands tailings ponds are one of the most dangerous and absurd facets of this industry. Dangerous because tailings ponds are some of the largest dams in the world, constructed for the toxic waste that remains after strip-mining the tarry bitumen from the sand that lies deep under Alberta’s Boreal forests and wetlands. Absurd because the tar sands oil industry is wasting precious natural resources and migratory bird habitat for waste storage.

The State Department is currently in the midst of a review of the Keystone XL proposal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in San Fransisco last week, suggested that the State Department would eventually approve the project, though her comments were a bit unclear.

Environmental leaders and lawmakers from the states through which the pipeline would run have pounced on the comments. Eleven Senate Democrats sent a letter to Clinton last week calling on her not to “prejudge” the outcome of the State Department review. And just yesterday, the heads of seven major environmental groups called on Clinton to “recuse” herself from the pipeline review, citing her comments on the project.

Clinton, speaking in San Fransisco earlier this week, suggested that the State Department, which is currently reviewing the massive pipeline project, would eventually approve it. But her comments were a bit unclear. The questioner asked about the Alberta Clipper pipeline, which has already been approved. But Clinton appeared to talk about the Keystone XL pipeline, which is still pending.

“So as I say, we’ve not yet signed off on it,” she said. “But we are inclined to do so.”

Here are Clinton’s full remarks on the issue:

Question: Another international issue that you signed in on last year was the Alberta Clipper, a pipeline from Alberta that brings tar sands, oil sands directly into Wisconsin to the U.S. Midwest. This is some of the dirtiest fuel in the world. And how can the U.S. be saying climate change is a priority when we’re mainlining some of the dirtiest fuel that exists. (Applause.)

Secretary Clinton: Well, there hasn’t been a final decision made. It is -

Question: Are you willing to reconsider it?

Secretary Clinton: Probably not. (Laughter.) And we – but we haven’t finish all of the analysis. So as I say, we’ve not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons – going back to one of your original questions – we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada. And until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet – (applause) – I mean, I don’t think it will come as a surprise to anyone how deeply disappointed the President and I are about our inability to get the kind of legislation through the Senate that the United States was seeking.

Clinton’s remarks have caused at least two lawmakers to speak out. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), who has already said he doesn’t support the pipeline project that would cut through his state, wrote a letter to Clinton yesterday asking for clarification on her comments. “Your comments inspire further doubts as to the validity of the review process taken on by the department,” he said.

Johnanns, in an interview with The Hill yesterday, suggested that the State Department could have a lawsuit on its hands if it predetermines the outcome of the Keystone XL review. “One would imagine that this decision will be challenged,” he told The Hill. “And if the net result is the ultimate decisionmaker … had already prejudged this then you have a problem where this would be determined to be arbitrary and capricious.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) followed suit yesterday with his own letter raising similar questions.

Although the bill may not go anywhere, it contains some measures that could be aimed at finding bipartisan support, including its first section on border enforcement. Republicans have made a call for border security a central part of their message on immigration reform. From the summary:

• Expands Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) staffing, in line with this review.
• Improves training and accountability for DHS border and immigration officers.
• Enhances cooperation with Canada and Mexico, as well as local law enforcement agencies, to improve border security and coordinate crime fighting.

The bill specifically places immigration in the hands of federal authorities, clarifying the legality of state immigration enforcement efforts such as Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law.

The next section focuses on interior enforcement, attempting to make the system less exploitable and more humane toward legal and illegal immigrants:

• Requires DHS to track the departure of noncitizens to ensure that individuals do not overstay their visas.
• Denies “visa waiver” privileges to countries whose citizens attempt to overstay visas.
• Refines existing law on illegal entry, illegal reentry and voluntary departure of noncitizens to ensure enforcement of those provisions and heighten penalties for those who commit serious offenses. [...]
• Improves detention conditions to meet basic standards; expands secure alternatives to detention.
• Ends the waiting period for refugees and asylees to obtain green cards.

Third is a section on workplace enforcement. Like the blueprint created by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) this spring, the Menendez-Leahy bill calls for a fraud-resistant, tamper resistant Social Security card:

• Mandates the use of an employment verification system for all employers within five years. [...]
• Requires the Social Security Administration to create a reliable and secure way of verifying Social Security numbers and work authorization.
• Adds criminal penalties for fraud and misuse of Social Security numbers.

The remainder of the bill focuses on reforming the legal immigration system, which both sides agree is badly in need of improvement. The fourth section focuses on how visas will be determined and distributed, including the AgJOBS and Uniting American Families Act to improve the process for farm workers and foreign partners of gay and lesbian citizens:

• Creates a Standing Commission on Immigration, Labor Markets, and the National interest to evaluate labor market and economic conditions and recommend quotas for employment? based visa programs that Congress and the President would act on. [...]
• Creates the structure for a new nonimmigrant visa program (H?2C) to address gaps in existing worker programs that have lead to undocumented migration. [...]
• Significantly expands labor protections in current H?2A, H?2B, H?1B, and L?1 visa programs.
• Ensures that the number of family and employment green cards authorized by Congress do not expire because of processing delays; expands the share of visas that each country can access within existing quotas that limit overall immigration.
• Incorporates the AgJOBS bill, which provides a path to permanent residency for farm workers and revises agricultural employer sponsorship requirements.
• Incorporates the Uniting American Families Act, which allows permanent partners to access the family?based immigration system.

The next step is legalization for some of the 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., which the Obama administration argues is necessary to maintain the economy, communities and families:

• Creates Lawful Prospective Immigrant (LPI) status for non?criminal undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. since 9/30/10. Requires applicants to submit biometric and biographical data, undergo security and law enforcement checks, and pay a $500 fine plus application fees. LPI status lasts four years and can be extended. It includes work authorization and permission to travel abroad; immediate family members are also eligible for status under the program. [...]
• Incorporates the DREAM Act, which creates a path to legal status for individuals who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, provided they meet age and other criteria and enroll in college or the U.S. military.

In its final section, the bill establishes several programs to better integrate immigrants into American society and provide humanitarian aid to those who cannot enter:

• Enhances programs and policies to help immigrants learn English and U.S. civics, such as: tax credits for teachers of English language learners and businesses who provide such training for their employees; a revamped DHS Office of Citizenship and New Americans to assist with immigrant integration; and grants for states who work to successfully integrate newcomers. [...]
• Evaluates the factors that drive undocumented migration from key sending countries and requires the State Department to develop a strategy to reduce migration pressures.

The visa system favors immediate family members, meaning children under the age of 21, spouses and parents. The longest wait times, then, are for those who want to come to the U.S. to join adult siblings or older parents, particularly from countries like Mexico with high volumes of visa applicants.

Multi-American has a run down of the longest wait times from the State Department’s visa bulletin. (Any applications filed after the listed priority date are not yet being considered.) This month’s worst waits are for:

1) Brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens from the Philippines, a wait of more than 19 years (priority date: January 1, 1991)

2) Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens from Mexico, a wait of more than 18 years (priority date: March 1, 1992)

3) Unmarried adult (21 and over) sons and daughters of U.S. legal permanent residents from Mexico, a wait of more than 18 years (priority date June 15, 1992)

4) Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens from Mexico, a wait of almost 18 years (priority date: December 1, 1992)

The cruelty of separating people from their families has been used as an argument for changing the visa system, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said family re-unification would continue to be a priority in comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

But some observers think reform should go in the other direction: cutting down on family-based visas in favor of more employment-based visas. The U.S. sets aside only 15 percent of its visas each year for employment-based visas, whereas Canada gives out 58 percent of visas for economy-related reasons. Some experts and business leaders argue the U.S. should focus on highly-skilled immigrants instead of family members: meaning those wait times might not go down even with comprehensive immigration reform.

The Obama administration has been trying to determine how to follow up on the Bush-era Merida Initiative, a three-year program started in 2008 to provide $1.6 billion in equipment and training to governments in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.

While drug cartel violence continues to rise, the Mexican government at times fails to act on intelligence from the U.S. — sometimes due to corruption, the Chicago Tribune reported. U.S. officials trust Mexican President Felipe Calderon, but are less sure of others in the Mexican government, Alonzo R. Pena, deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told the Tribune.

Still, Clinton’s statements affirmed the administration’s commitment to aiding Mexico in its fight against the drug cartels — the question is how. Clinton argued the U.S. should work with Mexico and Central American countries on a program like the one that helped Colombia’s government regain control from militants.

It’s a tricky balance to determine the right way forward, because the nationalistic Mexican government is wary of more active support from the U.S., experts told the Tribune:

Eric Olson, of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Center, said he senses from conversations with administration officials that “the administration still seems handcuffed by the lack of reliable partners at the operational level.”

Olson said that while he was reluctant to be alarmist, “I don’t think anybody thinks this has gotten to the bottom.”

Among the U.S. population, concern about violence in Mexico has so far largely focused on fear of spillover violence in the U.S. But putting up border fences and increasing patrol will not solve the drug cartel problem in Mexico, experts have said, and the U.S. has some responsibility because its citizens purchase many of the drugs that allow cartels to thrive.

Immigrants rights groups in the U.S., at least, should attempt to lean on the Mexican government to prevent atrocities like the mass murder of 72 would-be migrants in August, Hector Tobar argued in the Los Angeles Times today.

At least 400 mass kidnappings are carried out in Mexico each year, Tobar wrote, and immigrants rights groups should be protesting at Mexican consulates and fighting for more humanitarian aid:

Simply put: It’s wrong that people have to undertake the journey to the U.S. in the first place. People shouldn’t have to leave the land of their ancestors, their extended families, their barrios and their farms.

They leave because the promise of democracy in Mexico and Central America remains unfulfilled.

The Tamaulipas murders are really just the most sickening expression of a vast system of inequality and corruption that still defines life for millions of people.

A Somali refugee family resettles in Sioux Falls, S.D. (Flickr, UNHCR)

Stan Delp, a 67-year-old retired teacher living in Lansdale, Penn., was sitting in church in June, 2008, when he noticed four unfamiliar black-haired men by him. He found they were new to the United States, having spent 11 years in refugee camp in Thailand. Delp’s church is not big — about 200 people regularly attend — but nevertheless it has helped 47 such refugees assimilate to life in the United States over the past two years. When Delp met the men, he decided to do his part. He helped them buy clothes at Kohl’s and taught them how to use a refrigerator. He searched for jobs for them, and ended up waking at 5 a.m. to drive one man to work for several months, then allowed him to move into his home. Now that he lives in a retirement home, the refugees, now friends, visit a few nights a week.

“It’s like being a dad to them, really,” Delp says. “It takes 14 years to get assimilated into American culture. That’s a long time.”

[Immigration1] In the United States, the refugee resettlement system has always worked largely thanks to the generosity of people like Delp, as a public-private partnership with volunteer services and government backing. But the recession is threatening the stability of the program and the availability of resources to refugees. The government has stepped up its contributions to help new refugee migrants adjust to American life, but provides just eight months of resources. With jobs scarce, the churches and community centers that help after then are stretched to the point of breaking.

The government is aware of the problem, but thus far has taken only small steps to ameliorate it. The State Department doubled the amount of money it gives private resettlement agencies to help refugees when they first come to the United States, from $900 to $1,800. That amount helps the groups provide services for refugees and fund-raise for additional aid money for up to 90 days after the refugee enters the country. But the State Department knows $1,800 is not enough to support a refugee for three months, particularly with the difficulty of finding work, a State Department official told TWI.

“Part of the philosophy of our program is for people to reach self-reliance as quickly as possible,” says the official. “It used to be that very often refugees would have found work by the time our period of responsibility is up, and that’s much less true now.”

The Obama administration authorized in September 2009 the admission of up to 80,000 refugees in the 2010 fiscal year, up from 75,000 admitted in the 2009 fiscal year. In the authorization, the administration acknowledged that the “recent economic downturn has presented new challenges for this and other humanitarian programs.” To address these problems, the National Security Council was tasked with determining what needs to be done to improve refugee resettlement in the U.S.

“The basic set-up of the program hasn’t been altered in many years,” National Security Council spokesman Ben Chang told the Los Angeles Times in June. “It was time to take a fresh look.”

A few policy improvements have been recommended so far. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced legislation in March that would allow refugees to apply for green cards immediately upon entering the U.S. and adjust refugee resettlement grants annually based on inflation and the cost of living.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, commissioned a report on refugee resettlement and found the process often places an unfair burdens local communities. Called “Abandoned Upon Arrival,” Lugar argues in the opening of the July 21 report that the government should modify its funding and admittance numbers — either increasing funding of refugee resettlement programs or decreasing the number of refugees it admits — so high costs are not passed on to local communities.

“We must acknowledge the costs associated with this activity,” Lugar wrote in a July 20 letter formally requesting a Government Accountability Office investigation on the refugee resettlement process.

The idea of cutting down on refugee admissions is not appetizing, particularly at a time when the need is so high. Of 42 million people forced by conflict or persecution to move from their homes, 16 million need asylum or refugee status, according to a 2009 report from the United Nations Refugee Agency.

Forcing refugees to wait in camps, which often cannot provide the same health and education services they could find in the U.S., can have a detrimental affect on them, says Susan Krehbiel, a vice president at the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

“It does become kind of a Catch-22,” Krehbiel says. “Some of the refugees have been in camps for 15 to 20 years. There are some human costs to delaying peoples’ resettlement.”

Still, Krehbiel says the current system struggles to serve the refugees it does admit, and relies too heavily on volunteer donations of time and money. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, established in 1980 as part of the Department of Health and Human Services, provides funding for up to eight months of cash and medical assistance, and refugee families may be eligible for additional money through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, and Medicaid.

The government also provides up to five years of employment services, supplemented by private programs. But with the sluggish economy, employment programs through the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service have seem a marked difference in the speed of job searches among refugees, Krehbiel says. While in previous years 80 percent of refugees were employed within four months, the recession dropped that number to about 60 percent. It usually takes about a year to get 80 percent of refugees in the program hired, she says.

Janet Panning, a program director at two Pennsylvania Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service programs, says she has seen a significant decrease in employment opportunities for refugees. Recent anti-immigrant fervor hasn’t helped the situation, as some employers are hesitant to employ refugees because they think they could be illegal immigrants.

“People are very afraid of hiring people they think might be illegal or not have proper work documentation,” Panning says. “Sometimes employers that aren’t up on the law might be reluctant to hire a refugee because they might not have a green card.”

If they are not able to find employment, single people are in an especially bad situation after government cash assistance ends. Some refugees have struggled to support themselves and pay rent. Panning says she knows of several refugees who have become homeless over the years, but typically secondary issues beyond unemployment contribute to the problem.

Panning says she worked with one refugee who nearly became homeless after her family dispersed around the country. The woman had a war-related disability that was difficult to show to employers and kept her from working steadily, and eventually was placed in subsidized housing.

“She never went on the street, but it was through the blood, sweat and tears of volunteers that kept her in housing,” Panning says

The government has attempted to stave off homelessness among refugees. The State Department provided $5 million in emergency housing funding last year. For next year, the Department of Health and Human Services requested an additional $25 million from Congress for case management and emergency housing.

But local communities often take on that task as well. Delp charges a refugee $200 per month — “not even enough to cover utilities,” he laughs — to stay in his house while he stays in a local retirement home. He also helps a seven-person family pay the rent on a five-bedroom house nearby. (They were living in a two-bedroom apartment until he helped them move out a few weeks ago, Delp says.)

He says he and the other members of his church see helping the refugees as something they must do. “Those of us who have been given resources, it’s up to us to reach out to these people,” Delp says. “I can afford to reach out, so I want to help as much as I can.”

An Indian technology industry trade group called Nasscom has come out hard against the visa hike, arguing the bill will cost Indian tech firms $200 million to $250 million in increased human resource costs each year. Indian Trade Secretary Rahul Khullar said Tuesday the increase in visa fees is “WTO-incompatible,” Bloomberg reported.

The State Department seems eager to mend diplomatic and business problems — a spokesman said Monday the department is looking into these claims and working with Indian officials.

Even if India does not file a WTO dispute against the U.S., Indian experts argue the country should push back against the U.S. for enacting the visa hikes, Indian financial news site Money Control reported today:

Trade experts maintain that India should also explore other options like lobbying through American companies that use services of Indian professionals. In addition, experts also suggest using bilateral forums to negotiate visa related issues for Indian professionals. In the worst case scenario, experts maintain India could retaliate by restricting movement of US businessmen and professionals to India.