VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVN #0468/01 2390933
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 260933Z AUG 08
FM AMEMBASSY VIENTIANE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2173
INFO RHEFHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHDC
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 7788

UNCLAS VIENTIANE 000468 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL CASC KCRM LA
 
SUBJECT:  LAOS AND U.S. HOLD INITIAL DISCUSSIONS ON REPATRIATION 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  A three-member joint State/DHS(ICE) delegation 
traveled to Vientiane for "preliminary discussions" about the 
repatriation to Laos of Lao nationals and former Lao nationals.  The 
Government of Laos (GOL) representatives agreed that they are 
obligated under international law to take back Lao nationals.  Both 
sides recognized, however, that the issue of former nationals is 
more difficult, and requires further consideration.  After an 
exchange of views, during which a number of questions were raised, 
each side agreed to submit written questions to, and to answer 
written questions from, the other side, in the near future, with a 
view possibly meeting again in Vientiane in September.  The USG 
needs to consider what kind of arrangement and provisions will best 
meet its objectives. A round of discussions on this topic in 2001 
ended without an agreement, but improvements in the bilateral 
relationship enhance prospects of success this time.  End summary. 
 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  Representatives of the U.S. and Lao governments held 
preliminary discussions on repatriation at the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs on July 31.  A previous round of discussions in 2001 ended 
without agreement.  The Lao government agreed to this meeting on the 
understanding that it would be a preliminary discussion and not a 
negotiating session and that nothing that either side said would be 
considered binding in future discussions. 
 
¶3.  (U)  Following is a list of participants: 
 
Lao Government: 
 
-- Mai Sayavong, Deputy Director General, Department of Europe and 
Americas, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
-- Bounpheng Xaykanya, Deputy Director General, Treaties and Legal 
Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
-- Bounliep Hounvongsone, Director, Cabinet Division, Department of 
Consular Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
-- Phounsavath Volalat, Department of Immigration, Ministry of 
Public Security 
-- Naronglith Norasing, Deputy Director General of Rule of Law in 
Lao PDR, Ministry of Justice 
-- Souphanh Hadaoheuang, Deputy Director, Americas Division, 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
 
The U.S. delegation was composed of: 
 
--Mary McLeod, Assistant Legal Adviser for East and South Asia, 
Department of State 
-- Mary Grace McGeehan, Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy 
--John Crosson, Deportation Liaison Officer, Office of International 
Affairs, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of 
Homeland Security 
--Joan Lieberman, Associate Legal Adviser, Office of the Principal 
Legal Adviser, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department 
of Homeland Security 
--Joshua Archibald, Economic and Commercial Officer, U.S. Embassy 
 
¶4.  (SBU) McLeod opened by saying that, as evidenced by recent 
reciprocal returns of nationals (20 to Laos within the last year and 
one-half, 2 of Americans recently), both sides appeared to agree 
that a country has an obligation under international law to accept 
the return of its nationals. The question of former nationals was 
more difficult, but countries do take them back under certain 
circumstances.  She noted that the USG has entered into arrangements 
with Cambodia and Vietnam and hoped to do so with Laos, and offered 
to provide copies of the Cambodia and Laos arrangements if the GOL 
requested.  (Note:  The Lao side did not request these documents.) 
She suggested that the two sides discuss international law 
principles and the domestic law of each country concerning loss of 
nationality.  Mai agreed that Lao had an obligation to take back its 
nationals, but noted that nationality is often difficult to 
determine.  This issue has arisen in the current issues with 
Thailand on the return to Laos of ethnic Hmong. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  Crosson explained that when we want to return a foreign 
national, we currently go to the embassy in D.C. with (1) the order 
of removal (2) the criminal or immigration charges and (3) identity 
documents.  Sometimes consular officials interview the individual to 
determine whether he or she is a national.  An agreement between the 
USG and the GOL on repatriation would outline these procedures.  In 
the end, the decision whether or not to accept a return is up to the 
receiving country on a case by case basis.  Mai agreed that 
consideration should be on a case by case basis.  He added that the 
law of the receiving state must be considered, e.g., with respect to 
whether a person has lost nationality by escaping and being out of 
the country without contacts for a number of years. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  McLeod clarified that repatriation procedures would apply 
only to people who have not become U.S. citizens; the U.S. 
government would not seek to repatriate a dual national.  Lieberman 
explained that when a final order of removal is issued against a 
legal permanent resident (LPR), which only happens after various 
levels of review, LPR status terminates and the individual no longer 
has a legal immigration status in the U.S.  Mai commented that it is 
difficult to make people in Laos understand why the USG expects Laos 
to accept the return of LPRs who had lived in the U.S. for many 
years before committing crimes. 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  The discussion turned to the 2004 GOL nationality law. 
McLeod asked for clarification on how an individual loses 
nationality under Article 20, which on its face provides for loss of 
nationality after a Lao citizen lives abroad 7 years without 
authorization, or if his/her authorization to live abroad has 
expired and he or she is not registered with a Lao embassy or 
consulate abroad, or if he or she is abroad 10 years "without legal 
connection" with Laos. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  Norasing and Mai explained that the nationality law was 
somewhat in flux.  Lao nationals can lose nationality by application 
to the National Assembly (apparently similar to renunciation under 
U.S. law).  The requirement for an exit visa was abolished in 
January 2007, but Lao nationals who leave are supposed to register 
at a Lao Embassy or Consulate and receive an I.D. card, which is 
good for one year, but can be extended.  If they do not register for 
10 years, they lose their "legal connection" under the statute. 
Norasing explained that the nationality law was in flux (for 
instance, there are new decrees for granting permanent residency 
under consideration now), and undertook to get back to the U.S. side 
on how the loss of nationality provisions of the law are currently 
implemented. 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  McLeod asked whether an individual who stayed away 11 
years without contact would be admitted back to Laos.  Bounliep said 
that was a difficult question. Both Canada and the USG have 
submitted applications for the return of such individuals.  If they 
have Lao identification, Laos has no problem accepting them.  If 
they don't have identification to prove their citizenship, however, 
Laos cannot recognize them as Lao citizens.  They are "in the 
middle," stateless.  He indicated that the GOL had rejected more 
than 100 applications of such individuals. (Comment:  It was unclear 
to the American side in what time frame these applications were 
made.  End comment.) 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  Mai sought clarification about the legal basis in the 
U.S. for detention of individuals who had served their criminal 
sentences.  Lieberman and Crosson explained that immigration 
detention is not intended as punishment, but rather to make sure 
that their immigration status is adjudicated, and they are removed 
if they no longer have the right to remain in the U.S.  Lieberman 
explained that under U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2005, 
immigration detention can only last for a period of time reasonably 
necessary to remove the individual, usually six months. 
 
¶11.  (SBU)  Bounliep indicated that there are some U.S. LPRs living 
illegally in Laos, whom the GOL would like to send back to the U.S., 
and sought clarification on how they could be returned to the U.S. 
The U.S. side explained that under some circumstances LPRs who 
remain outside the U.S. can lose their right to return, but 
undertook to provide a more detailed explanation in writing.  McLeod 
explained that it is very difficult to lose U.S. citizenship, as 
opposed to LPR status. The individual must intend to lose status and 
commit the expatriating act voluntarily.  Norasing then said that 
for a Lao national to lose nationality, he or she should have 
acquired another nationality. 
 
¶12.  (SBU)  Bounpheng asked whether individuals who do not have 
money are provided free legal representation during immigration 
proceedings.  Lieberman explained that, while they have the right to 
representation and there are often pro bono attorneys available, the 
USG does not pay for such representation.  McLeod added that courts 
have found a right to counsel in criminal, but not civil cases.  In 
any event, the due process concerns in cases involving the removal 
of individuals who have been convicted of crimes are not as strong, 
because the conviction is the reason for removal, and the individual 
had the right to counsel, at government expense if necessary, in the 
criminal proceeding. When McLeod asked whether the GOL provided free 
legal assistance in immigration proceedings, Norasing indicated that 
he was not sure but noted that there are legal aid clinics, 
including mobile clinics, in Laos.  (Note: The mobile clinic program 
is run by the Asia foundation through a grant from a private 
foundation.) 
 
¶13.  (SBU)  Mai asked how many individuals were under consideration 
by the U.S. for return to Lao.  McLeod indicated there were about 
4100 and gave him the latest figures, but noted that there would 
need to be case by case review in each case, and the USG would not 
be expecting to send back large numbers at a time. 
 
¶14.  (SBU)  As the discussions drew to a close, McLeod suggested 
that the two sides exchange written questions and responses in the 
near future, with a view to possibly meeting in September.  While 
making no commitment, Mai indicated receptivity to the USG's 
suggesting a date.  At a future  meeting, he said, the Lao side 
would like to have an agenda with concrete questions to address. 
 
¶15.  (SBU)  Comment:  In addition to formulating questions for the 
GOL, the U.S. side will need to consider what we want to come out of 
these discussions.  In particular, we need to consider whether it 
would be preferable to do a less formal MOU (along the lines of the 
Cambodian Memorandum specifying procedures for removal and return) 
that does not on its face limit the universe of persons for whom we 
could seek return, rather than seek a formal agreement (like the 
Vietnamese agreement) which would more likely take longer and result 
in limitations on the persons for whom we could seek removal.  We 
note that the representatives on the Lao side of the discussion were 
mid-level officials who had been given approval to engage in 
preliminary discussion but not to negotiate formally.  Therefore, 
their comments must be taken as reflecting their own views and 
understanding rather than formal commitments or authoritative 
statements of Lao law and practice.  While the Lao side appeared 
receptive to future discussions, it will be up to more senior 
officials to decide whether to move forward. 
 
MCGEEHAN