Give me your poor, your huddled masses...and I'll lock em up indefinitely

[Chewbacca]

A judge already approved Sonam's asylum request. How many of the 9-11 hijackers were here on asylum?

The DHS has a problem with blanket policys, reading the article even they admit the policy of appealing every case and infinite detention is flawed. Though thats what I'd expect the talking head to say about it. I remain skeptical until I see actions, as in a change or clarification of policy rather than mere words.

Security wins over liberty once again, sorry Ben.

[Timber Loftis]

Security SHOULD win over liberty for non-citizens who are here illegally and are seeking permission to stay. Why should we let them be here until they are permitted to be here?

I don't think Ben would mind. Of course, in his day, these concerns (terrorism) were not as... developed (I guess is the word I'm looking for).

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Yes, how many hijackers WERE on asylum? I was under the impression that they were here on visas and whatnots.

And since when are Buddhist female nuns considered a threat to our national security? Sure, the terrorists are going to hit where we won't expect it, but with the misogynistic attitudes over there, they wouldn't trust a woman with any kind of mission... and I doubt, once here, she'd have the fervor to carry it out. Fear, maybe, but not fervor.

[Timber Loftis]

You are arguing the merits of whether or not she should be here. That's fine.

However, the question is whether she (and all other illegal immigrants) should be allowed to roam freely while that determination is being made. It's a procedural question, not a question of the application of the facts of an individual case to the rules.

[Chewbacca]

T.L., doesn't a judge granting a person asylum count as the determination being made? This is where I have a security vs liberty problem, granted I only have this one case to go by so far.
I am not advocating allowing everyone who seeks asylum to just roam freely, but after a judge has ruled a person worthy of asylum, that should count towards the liberty side I would think. I am arguing that the procedure is flawed if the outcome is like individual cases such as this.

I am curious, statistically speaking, how many appeals are ruled in favor of the DHS vs the already approved applicant?

I also wonder how much money would be saved giving the benifit of the doubt to already approved, yet on appeal asylum seekers on a case by case basis. Some sort of speedy "bail hearing" type procedure.

I also wonder if Sonam loses her appeal if she will be deported back to Nepal or to Tibet, I mean, China? If she ends up a prisoner of conscious in China becasue some DHS lawyer has a stick up her but for appealing every case then liberty has indeed lost to security.

[ 01-30-2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Appeals take time and require briefing (which is never brief) and a LOT of work. Most people don't appeal unless they think they really should have won.

Personally, I think the time period from an asylum grant to the appeal of that grant is a narrow and picky thing to slam the whole program for. For me, the general notion that illegal immigrants should be kept in custody until they are "legal" seems unquestionable.

Oh, because a judge can get reviewed by other judges on appeal, a judge's word is not final. In many instances the law preserves the "status quo" of the case pending appeal.

Example: You sue me for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on you by posting insensitive things on IWF. You win $2 million (assuming you can get blood from a stone). I appeal. Pending the appeal I keep the money and you get nothing. I may be required to post a 10% bond with the court, but by and large you don't get squat until a few years later when all appeals are exhausted and you've spent $100,000 more in attorney costs.

Anyway, back on topic, I also think I'd be fine with doing it either way -- let them out or keep them in pending appeal, I think the agency could have reasonably determined either. (Remember, agency rulemaking requires public notice and opportunity for public comment.)

If you looked at the statistics and found that 9/10 asylum grants were upheld on appeal, it would be reasonable to let asylum-seekers out pending appeal I guess. Another factor to consider is time elapsed pending appeal. If it's only a month, it might not be so bad to keep them in custody. If it's 4 months, there may be a better argument that they should be let out. I don't know the answers to this.

I propose renaming the thead and the article its based on, to the department of inhumane unjust irrational hysterical over-reaction [img]smile.gif[/img] (a joke)

First and formost, I love the way the articles writer twist sand bends and trys to play the audience....making routine procedures that happen to anyone in custody for any reason sound like it is a special torture done just to hurt and degrade this one lady. I also notice that this woman had the money and wherewithal to buy a plane ticket to Dulles. That costs quite a bit...why did she not seek asylum in an Embasy a bit closer to home? Perhaps because she knew she would not be able to get it legally? So she circumvents the process.

The story is so badly written that I can't believe anything in it. Come back with a less obviously jaundiced writer and then a real discussion can begin.

Anyway I was asked for my opinion. Thats all I can say at this point. For what it is worth, I hope se finds a way to get out of prison. But even at that she may deserve exactly what she is getting for all we know...the autor would obviously not tell us any negative issues.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: , the question is whether she (and all other illegal immigrants) should be allowed to roam freely while that determination is being made.

TL would you explain something to me ? From what i can make up from the article, this womens asylum request is in the process of being setteled. Why are you calling her an Illegal immigrant ? Correct me if i'm wrong and have missread your words but it sounds like you do. Anyway, if her case is still to be decided, she isn't an illegal immigrant.

[Timber Loftis]

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?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: , the question is whether she (and all other illegal immigrants) should be allowed to roam freely while that determination is being made.

TL would you explain something to me ? From what i can make up from the article, this womens asylum request is in the process of being setteled. Why are you calling her an Illegal immigrant ? Correct me if i'm wrong and have missread your words but it sounds like you do. Anyway, if her case is still to be decided, she isn't an illegal immigrant. [/QUOTE]She is technically an illegal immigrant the moment she steps off a plane without a visa. A request for "asylum" can be made by an illegal immigrant if they can prove that they would be persecuted in their home country. At that point, they would become legal. However, that determination is not finalized. One judge ruled, and so long as that judge is upheld on appeal, the decision will be final and she will have asylum. Ultimately this will lead to visas and a green card. Maybe ultimately citizenship.