Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
quote:
Sonam's case was appealed because she did not have enough documentation to back up her story, according to a brief filed by Homeland Security attorney Deborah Todd. The fact that Sonam lived in Nepal for three years indicated that she could have safely stayed there and did not need to come to the United States, Todd argued in her appeal
|
Sounds like there are concerns about her asylum grant that may merit an appeal. I understand she could not get papers proving who she was based on Tibet's nonrecognition of Chinese refugees. However, what about her Chinese papers? Why did she need to leave Tibet? Couldn't she return there? [/QUOTE]Buddhists are routinely persecuted in Chinese-occupied Tibet. This is why the Dali Lama and many other Buddhists have fled for safer shores over the years since the Chinese invasion. Nepal, under pressure from the Chinese, routinely deports Tibetan refugees back to Chinese-occupied Tibet and into Chinese custody. For a Buddhist this could mean incarceration and usually worst. Hence the need to seek Asylum.
Perhaps the prosecutor has grounds to ask for an appeal, perhaps there are bigger fish for the prosecutor to fry. Though there appears to be merit for an appeal, should that automatically dictate one?. Is the price for both detainee, suffering from severe isolation and the government, the cost of incarceration and the appeal process worth it compared to grounds made for the appeal?
*******************
Also and more generally, this is only one issue concerning the DHS that inspired both the title of the thread and the opening comment. I recall almanac profiling as well as the detention of many foreign journalists to be to other 'fresh' issues that come to mind that also seem irrational, wasteful, and/or- oppressive. Not to mention the color coded fear scale, the duct-tape and plastic scare, and other alarmists tactics.
I stand by my critism of the DHS 100%. In my opinion, It seems to easily lose touch with reason and humanity in favor of security and control. I only advocate finding a balance that is appropriate and in accordance with American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness amongst others.