US Embassy Bahamas on ‘Ordered Departure’ For Non-Emergency Staff/Family Members #HurricaneDorian

 

On August 30, 2019, the State Department issued a Travel Advisory for The Bahamas urging caution due to Hurricane Dorian. It also announced the “ordered departure” of non-emergency personnel and family members from the island on August 29. Embassy Nassau announced on Twitter that the mandatory departure of affected personnel and family members are done via commercial flights and ferries.

Freeport, Grand Bahama – Level 3: Reconsider Travel

Exercise increased caution in Freeport, Grand Bahama due to Hurricane Dorian.

On August 29, The Department of State ordered non-emergency personnel and family members of U.S. government employees to depart Freeport, Grand Bahama in The Bahamas in advance of Hurricane Dorian.

If you decide to travel to The Bahamas:

      • Exercise caution in the area known as “Over the Hill” (south of Shirley Street) and the Fish Fry at Arawak Cay in Nassau, especially at night.
      • Do not answer your door at your hotel/residence unless you know who it is.
      • Do not physically resist any robbery attempt.
      • Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive Alerts and make it easier to locate you in an emergency.
      • Follow the Department of State on Facebook and Twitter.
      • Review the Crime and Safety Report for The Bahamas.
      • U.S. citizens who travel abroad should always have a contingency plan for emergency and medical situations. Review the Traveler’s Checklist.

The Bahamas – Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution

Exercise increased caution in the Bahamas due to crime. Some areas have increased risk. Read the entire Travel Advisory.

Violent crime, such as burglaries, armed robberies, and sexual assault, occurs even during the day and in tourist areas. Although the family islands are not crime-free, the vast majority of crime occurs on New Providence and Grand Bahama islands. U.S. government personnel are not permitted to visit the area known by many visitors as the Sand Trap area in Nassau due to crime. Activities involving commercial recreational watercraft, including water tours, are not consistently regulated. Watercrafts are often not maintained, and many companies do not have safety certifications to operate in The Bahamas. Jet-ski operators have been known to commit sexual assaults against tourists. As a result, U.S. government personnel are not permitted to use jet-ski rentals on New Providence and Paradise Islands.

Read the Safety and Security section on the country information page.

NOAA’s Public Advisory issued at 5PM EDT Sat Aug 31 2019 notes that hurricane conditions are expected in the hurricane warning area across the northwestern Bahamas by Sunday, with tropical storm winds beginning tonight. It also warns of life-threatening storm surge that will raise water levels by as much as 10 to 15 feet above normal tide levels in areas of onshore winds the Abaco Islands and Grand Bahama Island. Near the coast, the surge will be accompanied by large and destructive waves. Further, rainfall may cause life-threatening flash floods.

 

 

Advertisements

@StateDept Appoints Ex-Pompeo Chief of Staff as Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources

 

Secretary Pompeo recently informed State Department employees that they just swore in a new Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources, Jim Richardson. “Most recently, Jim served as the Assistant to the Administrator in USAID’s Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning and the Coordinator of USAID’s Transformation Task Team. In his new role, he’ll guide the F Bureau in helping both the State Department and USAID connect the resources to our foreign policy objectives.”
Mr. Richardson succeeds Eric M. Ueland who was appointed as F Director in October 1, 2018 but has since been appointed to the WH as head of legislative affairs.  Mr. Ueland is however, still listed as F Director on state.gov.
While Pompeo did not mention that Richardson was his former chief of staff when he served in the Congress, the state.gov bio did mention the work he did for the former congressman:

James “Jim” Richardson is the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources at the U.S. Department of State, where he coordinates the allocation of more than $35 billion in foreign assistance resources.

Previously, Jim served as Assistant to the Administrator in USAID’s Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL) and Coordinator of USAID’s Transformation Task Team, where he led the Agency’s historic reorganization to reshape the Agency around the principle of ‘Ending the Need for Foreign Assistance’.

Jim has nearly 20 years of government experience. Prior to joining the Trump Administration, he was Chief of Staff for then-Congressman Mike Pompeo (KS-04)—overseeing Pompeo’s offices in Washington, DC and in Wichita, Kansas, as well as the campaign organization.

Throughout his years in Washington, Jim spearheaded numerous complex operations and developed an extensive background in public policy and the legislative process. Prior to leading Congressman Pompeo’s staff, Jim worked with the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for Congressman Todd Tiahrt (KS-04), the House Armed Services Committee for Congressman Jim Ryun (KS-02), and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO). He started his government career with Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-MO).

Jim holds a Bachelors of Science in Government from Evangel University and a Master of Science in Defense and Strategic Studies from Missouri State University. He is also a graduate of the United States Air Force Air Command and Staff College (ACSC).

 

#

@StateDept Appoints  Peter Berkowitz as New Director of Policy Planning

 

Secretary Pompeo told Foggy Bottom that Peter Berkowitz will serve as  the Department’s new Director of Policy Planning, where “he will help craft a long-term strategic vision for American diplomacy.” His appointment follows the departure of Kiron Skinner who until recently was S/P Director (see @StateDept Policy Planning’s Kiron Skinner Reportedly Out Over “Abusive” Management Style). Below is Dr. Berkowitz’s bio via state.gov:

Dr. Peter Berkowitz is the Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff in the office of the Secretary.

Dr. Berkowitz joined the State Department from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University where he is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow.

Dr. Berkowitz’s study and writing has focused on, among other things, constitutional government, conservatism and progressivism in the United States, liberal education, national security and law, and Middle East politics.

He is the author of Constitutional Conservatism: Liberty, Self-Government, and Political Moderation (Hoover Institution Press, 2013); Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War (Hoover Institution Press, 2012); Virtue and the Making of Modern Liberalism (Princeton University Press, 1999); and Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist (Harvard University Press, 1995).

He is the editor of seven collections of essays on political ideas and institutions published by the Hoover Institution: Renewing the American Constitutional Tradition (2014); Future Challenges in National Security and Law (2010); The Future of American Intelligence (2005); Terrorism, the Laws of War, and the Constitution: Debating the Enemy Combatant Cases (2005); Varieties of Conservatism in America (2004); Varieties of Progressivism in America (2004); and Never a Matter of Indifference: Sustaining Virtue in a Free Republic (2003).

He is a contributor at RealClearPolitics, and has written hundreds of articles, essays and reviews on a range of subjects for a variety of publications, including The American Interest, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, and the Yale Law Journal.

In addition to teaching regularly in the United States and Israel, Dr. Berkowitz has led seminars on the principles of freedom and the American constitutional tradition for students from Burma at the George W. Bush Presidential Center and for Korean students at Underwood International College at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea.

He taught constitutional law and jurisprudence at George Mason University School of Law from 1999 to 2006, and political philosophy in the department of government at Harvard University from 1990 to 1999.

He holds a JD and a PhD in political science from Yale University, an MA in philosophy from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a BA in English literature from Swarthmore College.

#

@StateDept Appoints Cam Henderson as Chief of Protocol

 

On August 12, the State Department appointed Cam Herderson as its new Chief of Protocol. She replaces Sean Lawler who was sworn in as Chief of Protocol of the United States, with rank of Ambassador on December 1, 2017. In late June, Bloomberg reported that Mr. Lawler was pulled off AF1 manifest after his staff complained of intimidating behavior, including reportedly, carrying a horsewhip in the office (see @StateDept’s Protocol Chief Sean Lawler to Quit Before G-20 Summit #horsewhip #wherearethehorses). It looks like the new Protocol Chief does not have an ambassador rank and did not require Senate confirmation. Below is a brief bio via state.gov:

Cam Henderson was appointed as the Chief of Protocol of the United States on August 12, 2019. In this role, Ms. Henderson leads the Office of the Chief of Protocol in its mission to advance the foreign policy of the Trump Administration by creating and fostering an environment for successful diplomacy. Welcoming kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers, and other foreign leaders to the United States, Ms. Henderson serves on the front lines of diplomatic engagement, building bridges and fostering understanding between peoples and governments. Prior to her appointment as the Chief of Protocol of the United States, Ms. Henderson served as the Deputy Chief of Protocol.

Ms. Henderson brings 20 years of experience in politics and fundraising to her role as the Chief of Protocol. Before joining the U.S. Department of State, she was Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Presidential Personnel in the Trump Administration. She worked extensively in the political realm in New Jersey, serving as former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s finance director during his 2016 presidential campaign. From 2010-2012, Ms. Henderson honed her protocol skills as First Lady Mary Pat Christie’s Chief of Staff and Director of Protocol. In 2013, she left the NJ State House to help New Jerseyans recover from the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, working as executive director of the Hurricane Sandy NJ Relief Fund and ultimately raising 42 million dollars to help with those relief efforts.

In the early stages of her career, Ms. Henderson worked for President George W. Bush in the Office of Presidential Personnel, on the George W. Bush re-election campaign, and at the Republican National Committee.

Ms. Henderson is originally from Chattanooga, TN and is a proud graduate of American University.

#

USCIS to Shrink Overseas Presence to Seven Locations

 

We almost missed a recent announcement from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) dated August 9 concerning its “international footprint.” It will maintain its presence at seven locations but will close 13 field offices and 13 district offices within the next year.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today plans to maintain operations at its international field offices in Beijing and Guangzhou, China; Nairobi, Kenya; and New Delhi, India. Previously, Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli directed the agency to continue operating in Guatemala City, Guatemala; Mexico City, Mexico; and San Salvador, El Salvador, as part of a whole-of-government approach to address the crisis at the southern border.

While retaining these seven international offices, USCIS plans to close the remaining thirteen international field offices and three district offices between now and August 2020. The first planned closures are the field offices in Monterrey, Mexico, and Seoul, South Korea, at the end of September. These organizational changes will allow more effective allocation of USCIS resources to support, in part, backlog reduction efforts.

“This cost-effective and high value international footprint allows USCIS to efficiently adjudicate complex immigration petitions that require in-person interviews, to enhance integrity through fraud detection and national security activities, and to liaise with U.S. and foreign government entities to improve migration management capacity,” said Cuccinelli. “In the months ahead, USCIS will close its other international offices on a staggered schedule, ensuring a smooth transition of workloads to USCIS domestic offices and State Department consular sections, while mitigating impacts on USCIS staff who will rotate back to domestic positions.”

Many functions currently performed at international offices will be handled domestically or by USCIS domestic staff on temporary assignments abroad. As part of this shift, the Department of State (DOS) will assume responsibility for certain in-person services that USCIS currently provides at international field offices. In addition to issuing visas to foreign nationals who are abroad, DOS already performs many of these service functions where USCIS does not have an office. USCIS is working closely with DOS to minimize interruptions in immigration services to affected applicants and petitioners.

As of this writing, travel.state.gov’s newsroom remains pretty sparse with news.

#

Secretary Pompeo Gives a Speech in Indiana, Next Week He’ll Deliver a Lecture in Kansas #hesnotrunning

 

The Washington Examiner recently reported that Mike Pompeo has “closed the door on any speculation he might run for the open Senate seat in Kansas next year.”  “I am going to stay here,” he said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. “There’s lots of people talking about it. The only one who’s not talking about it is me.”
The interview was conducted just a day after he attended an event with the Committee to Unleash American Prosperity, a group launched in 2015 with a stated goal of “persuading the presidential hopefuls in both parties to focus on the paramount challenge facing our country: slow growth and stagnant incomes.” (Also see Mike Pompeo’s Kansas Run: He’s Running, He’s Not …He’s Running, He’s … He’s …).
On August 27, Secretary Pompeo, delivered remarks at the 101st National Convention of The American Legion, this time in Indianapolis, Indiana and told attendees “we’re not going to apologize for America anymore”. Excerpt below:

Some of our leaders would say that the idea of America, or of “Americanism,” means inherent racism, or sexism.  Others say that Americanism is a code word for a narrow-minded nationalism.  Some even want us to reject the founding principles which have blessed us since 1776.  They want to substitute our founders’ words for something else.

They’d like us to shun those founding principles, principles that were bestowed on us by God and codified in our Constitution and properly taught in our schools’ civics courses.  They want us to reject the very ideas that are central to understanding our nation’s exceptionalism, and indeed its greatness.

That can’t happen, and I’m counting on you all to help me make sure that that never happens.  (Applause.)

And when it comes to Americanism in our foreign policy, for decades, frankly we just plain ignored it.  We didn’t lead.  We let the bureaucrats in international organizations lead us.  We let our allies shun their responsibilities.

We pretended our enemies were our friends, and sometimes sadly we even appeased them.

But those days are over.  No more.  The Trump administration – and you’ll hear it from the Vice President tomorrow – we’ve gotten back to the basics.  As I said when I was in Cairo now a few months back, we’re not going to apologize for America anymore.  (Applause.)  No, Americanism is something that we must be proud of.  We’re putting it at the center of our foreign policy.  Every one of my diplomats all across the world knows it, and is delivering it.

On Friday, September 6, 2019, he will also deliver the 190th Landon Lecture in the McCain Auditorium at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas. Sounds like a bunch of domestic stuff going on for somebody who’s not running for political office. Get ready, in any case; Foggy Bottom could get Mick Mulvaney as Acting SecState 🙂 We live in Netflix’s Stranger World.

#

#USCIS Badly Written ‘Policy Alert’ on Citizenship Blows Up, Causes Wildfire

 

 

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published a Policy Alert on August 28, 2019 on “Defining Residence in Statutory Provisions Related to Citizenship.”  The same day, the agency had to issue a USCIS Policy Manual Update and the Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli subsequently had to issue a statement clarifying the policy update, “This policy update does not affect who is born a U.S. citizen, period.  This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.  This does NOT impact birthright citizenship.  This policy update does not deny citizenship to the children of US government employees or members of the military born abroad.  This policy aligns USCIS’ process with the Department of State’s procedure, that’s it.”
That’s it! The end. But that doesn’t make it so. There was a hashtag trending already.
So, first, we need to point out that the Foreign Affairs Manual (see 8 FAM 301.1) already dispels the myth that birth on a U.S. military base outside of the United States or birth on U.S. embassy or consulate premises abroad constitutes as “birth in the United States:”

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.  A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth;

(2)  The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America.

Children born at U.S. military installations overseas or at U.S. diplomatic and consular premises are not born in the United States and do not/do not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth in the United States or outlying possessions; they could acquire citizenship through one or both their U.S. citizen parents.  We’re throwing this out there because various reporting appears to perpetuate the misconception that birth in these premises accord children their U.S. citizenship; it doesn’t.
Now, we’ve read USCIS’s multiple justifications for this update (pages 9-10), and we still don’t understand the reasoning for rescinding the previous interpretation. What precipitated this update? If true that this affects only approximately a hundred annually, why is this update even necessary?  Supposedly, the original  policy determination was made in 2004, and there were changes in 2008, but the previous Administration did not clean it up or reconcile the conflicts in the various  parts of the Immigration Act so the current Administration is now updating the policy? That’s basically what USCIS is saying on the Alert.
Also, the previous policy apparently “produced confusion” which obviously, this policy update does not.
One blog pal who did consular work called it “messy and contradictory prior guidance.” But we think part of the problem is that this Administration has such a poor record on immigration that it even when it is providing a policy guidance to clean up or sort out the conflicts in the law, it causes a wildfire in our heads.
We have some thoughts about this updated USCIS policy; just that  – some thoughts based on the published regs because we’re nerdy that way and the wildfire caused by this interests us. That USCIS Policy Alert is frankly, a convoluted piece of work but it makes two points:  one, it makes a distinction between a “residence” and “physical presence” in the United States, and two, it talks about change specific to INA 320.

Residence vs. Physical Presence

The USCIS Policy Alert basically says that an individual may be physically present in the United States for summer camps or while visiting relatives for weeks or even months but those would not constitute a residence  for the purposes of transmission of citizenship. Page 4 of the Alert notes:

Residence is more than a temporary presence or a visit to the United States. Therefore, temporary presences and visits are insufficient to establish residence for the purposes of transmitting citizenship. For example, someone who resides along the border in Mexico or Canada, but works each day in the United States, cannot use his or her workplace to establish a residence.”

We found a similar language in the State Department’s 8 FAM 301.7-4(B)  Birth in Wedlock or of Wedlock to Two U.S. Citizen Parents, updated in June 2018, which notes the following:

Residence is not determined solely by the length of time one spends in a place, but also takes into account the nature and quality of the person’s connection to the place.  This is a very fact-specific test.  However, at all times and in all cases, residence involves the connection to a specific physical place.  Residence is not a state of mind that travels with a person.  Department guidance clearly states that residence is more than a temporary presence and that visits to the United States are insufficient to establish residency for the purposes of citizenship transmission under INA 301(c).

8 FAM 301.7-4(B) also notes that “a child born abroad to two U.S. citizens acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if, before the child’s birth, one of the parents had a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions.  No specific period of residence is required.”
Is that why USCIS want to clarify this? The USCIS Policy Alert description of documents required to demonstrate residence is almost identical to the State Department’s list enumerated in the 8 FAM 301.7-4(B) section, by the way.
This FAM citation also helpfully points out:

The concept of “residence” should not be confused with the term “physical presence” which is used elsewhere in the INA as the test for transmitting citizenship, and which is a more literal concept that may be easier to apply.  INA 301(g), for example, requires that when only one parent is a U.S. citizen, that citizen parent must have a specific duration of physical presence — not residence–in the United States prior to the birth of the child in order to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.  Unlike in INA 301(g), in INA 301(c), Congress chose to use the term “residence,” and not set a time requirement.  The rationale being that the nature of a residence presupposes the sort of relationship to a place that mere physical presence does not.

INA 320/INA 322

The USCIS Policy Manual Update explains the Policy Alert better:
      • Clarify that temporary visits to the U.S. do not establish U.S. residence;
      • Explain the distinction between residence and physical presence in the United States; and
      • Explain that USCIS no longer considers children who are living abroad with a parent who is a U.S. government employee or U.S. service member as “residing in the United States” for purposes of acquiring citizenship under INA 320.
That’s simple enough when put that way. It also links to Automatic Acquisition of Citizenship after Birth (INA 320) and the  General Requirements for  Genetic, Legitimated, or Adopted Child Automatically Acquiring Citizenship after Birth.
So we looked up INA 320 in the FAM. Per 8 FAM 301.10-1(A), the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), Public Law 106-395, which took effect February 27, 2001, amended INA 320 to extend U.S. citizenship automatically to certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens.  It extended citizenship to three categories of children:

(a)  Children of naturalized citizens;
(b)  Children adopted abroad by U.S. citizens; and
(c)  Children born abroad to a U.S. citizen and who do not otherwise acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under INA 301 as made applicable by INA 309.

The law also amended INA 322 to apply only to children who reside outside the United States and who do not have Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status; amended INA 322 to provide for expeditious naturalization to children born outside the United States and who do not have LPR status.;  and stepchildren cannot avail themselves of the CCA unless they have been adopted by the U.S. citizen step parent.
The FAM notes that children acquiring U.S. citizenship under the Child Citizenship Act are not eligible for form FS-240, Consular Report of Birth Abroad of Citizen of the United States of America or form DS-1350, Certification of Birth, which are processed by consular sections at US embassies and consular posts overseas.
The acquisition of U.S. citizenship under the revised INA 320 or revised INA 322 is a form of expedited administrative naturalization.  The FAM cite further notes that Section 322 INA is administered exclusively by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
So it looks like what this policy update does in attempt to clarify what “residence” means, and it removes the exception  under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA) for children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States. One of the requirements under INA 320 is that “The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent. [5]  
One source who did consular work told us that it may be that U.S. military serving overseas are considered resident on, for instance, a U.S. base in Germany. Well, in fact, the USCIS still has this in their footnotes as of this writing: 

“5. [^] See INA 320. See 8 CFR 320.2. Children of U.S. government employees temporarily stationed abroad are considered to be “residing in the United States” for purposes of acquisition of citizenship under INA 320. 

We borrowed another head which happens to be a consular one, and he/she thought that with this policy change of what is a “residence,” U.S. citizens could not just be on TDY to the United States or on a visit to obtain citizenship for their children, they have to be residing in the United States. Whereas in the past, military members or FS members may be able to arrive in the US. and get naturalization for their children then return overseas to continue their assignment, it appears that this new update would make it so that U.S. citizen parents have to do the naturalization on behalf of their minor children at the end of their overseas tours and when they are permanently relocating to the United States. At least, that’s how we’re reading this policy update at this time. We’re happy to entertain other interpretations.
We’ve checked the USCIS website to see what this means in terms of processing fees and time.  The USCIS website which has not been updated yet as of last night notes that per INA 320, the child must be under 18 years of age and must be a legal permanent resident in order to qualify. In order to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship, a child who has automatically acquired citizenship must follow the instructions on the Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600). This cost $1,170 and the fee applies even if the applicant is filing as an adopted child or as a child of a veteran or member of the U.S. armed forces. Processing time for an N-600 case according to USCIS is between 5 Months to 24.5 Months (same for Newark, NJ, and WashDC but may vary for other areas).
Effective October 29, 2019, USCIS no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as “residing in the United States” for purposes of acquiring citizenship under INA 320, but they may still apply under INA 322.

In general, INA 322 provides that a parent who is a U.S. citizen (or, if the citizen parent has died during the preceding five years, a citizen grandparent or citizen legal guardian) may apply for naturalization on behalf of a child born and residing outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship automatically under INA 320. The child must naturalize before he or she reaches 18 years of age.

See Children of Service Members Residing Abroad (INA 322). (Form N-600K) This also cost $1,170. Processing time for an N-600K case in El Paso, TX is between 6.5 Months to 28.5; same processing time for Los Angeles, CA, although the time may vary in other locations; we haven;’t checked all the locations).
Based on USCIS info, the processing fees are the same either way, but applications under INA 322 may take slightly longer than applications INA 320.  Are there any other ways where the INA 322 process is different or more challenging to applicants? We’ll update this post if we learn anything more.

 

Related items:

301.7 IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952

301.1 (U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES

8 FAM 301.10 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY THE CHILD CITIZENSHIP ACT

 

Presentations of Credentials: U.S. Ambassadors to Libya, Malawi, Mexico, Slovakia, Slovenia

 

LIBYA

MALAWI

MEXICO

SLOVAKIA

SLOVENIA

Who’s Going to be the Next @StateDept Deputy Secretary? Two Names Floating Around: Biegun, Bulatao

 

Politico is reporting that Steve Biegun, President Trump’s special representative for North Korea, is being seriously considered for the No. 2 job at the State Department, according to two senior administration officials with knowledge of the matter.
This follows an NYT report on August 20 concerning the expected nomination of Deputy Secretary John Sullivan to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Moscow.
The new report from Politico also says that “The whole building is vying for the job,” citing another senior administration official.  But only one other name, so far, has been mentioned besides Biegun.  A former State Department official told Politico that “one of the contenders could include Brian Bulatao, the undersecretary of state for management, who was chief operating officer of the CIA when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was CIA director.
Note that Bulatao was confirmed as “M” just this past May after the nomination languished in the Senate for several months.
The Deputy Secretary serves as the principal deputy, adviser, and alter ego to the Secretary of State …
Christopher (1993-1997) and Albright (1997-2001) had Strobe (Nelson Strobridge) Talbott III (1994–2001) although Clifton Reginald Wharton Jr. did serve as Deputy Secretary on the first year of Christopher’s tenure. Powell (2001-2005) had Richard Lee Armitage (2001–2005) for his entire tenure at State. Rice (2005-2009) had Robert B. Zoellick (2005–2006) and career diplomat John Dimitri Negroponte (2007–2009). Clinton (2009-2013) had James Braidy Steinberg (2009–2011) and career diplomat William Joseph Burns (2011–2014). Kerry (2013-2017) kept Burns as Deputy Secretary after taking office then had Antony Blinken (2015–2017) as Deputy for the remainder of his tenure.
John Sullivan was originally nominated for a post at DOD (see Previously Announced DOD Nominee John J. Sullivan Now Slated to be @StateDept’s No. 2). On April 2017, he was nominated to be Deputy Secretary at State (see Trump to nominate John J. Sullivan to be @StateDept’s No.2 and to also serve as No.3.   He got his confirmation hearing in May 2017, and was confirmed the same month as Deputy Secretary of State in a 94-6 vote. He went on to serve as Rex Tillerson’s deputy, and subsequently as Acting Secretary of State after Tillerson’s firing. If he is nominated for the ambassador’s post in Russia, we expect that he’ll sail quickly through the confirmation process.
We were kind of perplexed why he would take this Moscow job, which is a step down from his current position in Foggy Bottom. As chief of mission at the US Embassy in Moscow, his reporting chain would be to the EUR bureau, an office under the Under Secretary for Political Affairs (P), a position that reports to the Deputy Secretary (his old job) and to the Secretary. Of course, he is a political appointee so we expect that he’ll go where they send him but we’re really curious why or how this came to be.
CNN cites two sources saying that “Sullivan is well-liked at the State Department but is not inside Pompeo’s inner circle. Sullivan has often felt out of the loop and wanted a new post. Despite having little experience when it comes to Russia, Sullivan lobbied to get this job and Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton ended up supporting him. The sources said Pompeo and Bolton recognize that the US ambassador to Russia is a challenging role, but not one that holds a lot of significance in this administration.”
Hmmnn…. he could have also picked Japan, Brazil, Canada or Gabon and São Tomé & Príncipe among a host of capitals with no ambassadors!  We’ll have to wait for Mr. Sullivan’s oral history, hey?

#

Ex-FSO Bethany Milton’s NYT Op-Ed on Why She Left the State Department

 

Below is the latest public resignation from the U.S. Foreign Service by Bethany Milton who joined the FS in 2008. She most recently served as Consular Chief at the U.S. Embassy in Kigali, Rwanda.

Via NYT:

When President Trump allowed a crowd to chant “Send her back!” about a sitting member of Congress — espousing an ideology in which naturalized American citizens, at least those who don’t fit a certain profile, are held to different and dangerous standards — he wasn’t thinking about me. He’s rarely thinking about me, the white American-born daughter of two American-born citizens.

But he is often thinking and talking about at least some of the tens of thousands of people I’ve helped immigrate to the United States — legally and permissibly — over my 11 years as a consular officer in the Foreign Service. From 2014 to 2016, I oversaw immigrant visa processing at the U.S. Consulate General in Mumbai, India. Every day, my team and I saw dozens of families destined to move to the United States as green card holders: older parents going to spend their final years surrounded by grandchildren, spouses matched up through online matrimonial sites, parents with kids in tow who had been waiting patiently since the early 1990s for their chance to join a sibling.

I also oversaw immigrant visa operations in Kigali, Rwanda, from 2018 to 2019, helping Rwandans and Congolese reunite with family members in the United States. Their stories often had a darker tone: marriages brokered in refugee camps, siblings separated by war, children born of rape. But the one thing that united almost every visa applicant I ever saw was the belief that life was going to be better in America. What a rude surprise, then, for them to face elected national leadership that targets them in such gruesome ways.

When a diplomat joins the State Department, she sits through two presentations toward the end of her weekslong orientation class. One is an afternoon session about the State Department’s storied dissent channel, which lets employees speak out internally about foreign policy decisions free from the fear of retaliation. How to use it, when to use it, what it means. The other is a much shorter presentation, one that lasts all of 15 seconds: “The day you can no longer publicly support your administration’s policies is the day you need to resign.”

 

Continue reading