We are a nation of immigrants. You all know this. Most of us had to write an essay about it at some point in elementary school, unless we could get out of it by having our mom bake a loaf of Irish Soda bread or whichever other recipe to honor our heritage.
If the House version of the 9/11 bill becomes law, we will have no right to say it. I’ve focused heavily on the sections legalizing extraordinary rendition, but the awful things is, they are probably not even the worst part of Hastert’s bill. In terms of innocent people sent to torture and death, some of the other anti-immigration provisions would probably do more harm. The ACLU summarizes them here:
Attack on Habeas Corpus (Section 3006) – The House bill would eliminate judicial review of some immigration deportation orders under the ancient “Great Writ” of habeas corpus by channeling virtually all immigration cases to the federal courts of appeals, where appeals in some cases are barred.
Traditionally available to any person, citizen or non-citizen, in the United States as a “safety valve” that allows one final appeal to challenge extreme injustices by the authorities, habeas review would be barred in certain cases involving, for instance:
–Challenges to removal where the deportee is likely to be tortured upon return.
–Attorney malpractice or incompetence.
–Virtually all cases of the unlawful use of “expedited removal,” which allows immigration officials to summarily deport certain non-citizens, including many who are already in the country, if they believe, for instance, that their documents are invalid. Practically, the change could mean that a refugee from the genocide in Sudan who arrives without proper documentation could be sent back without any hearing….Deportation Before Final Appeal (Section 3009) – The bill would set an extraordinarily high bar for courts to meet before granting “stays” of deportation, even while a deportee’s appeal is pending. Effectively, this section will render those appeals moot in many cases, because the non-citizen will have already been deported.
Deportation to Countries Without a Functioning Government (Section 3033) – The consent of a government to accept a person being deported there is a basic principle in international law. To do otherwise would subject many deportees to extreme human rights violations, torture and even death. The House bill would remove that requirement, allowing the government to deport a person to any country that does not “physically” resist his or her entry….
Asylum Claims Made More Difficult (Section 3007) — Currently, asylum seekers need only show they face persecution based in part on race, religion, nationality or membership in a certain social group. The current law would require one of these criteria to be the “central motive” behind the persecution. This is a significantly higher burden to meet for any asylum claimant who will suffer persecution based on a mixture of these factors, or who will suffer harm that is related, but not directly so, to one of these factors (for instance, an opposition party politician who faces arrest on trumped-up charges).
The section would also allow a judge to require asylum seekers to “corroborate” their claim of persecution, and lowers the ability of other courts to overturn a denial of asylum based on the ruling judge’s demand for corroboration. This is a significantly higher hurdle for asylum seekers, who often lack any ability to prove their claim through anything save their own testimony (imagine, again, a hypothetical Christian refugee who escapes Darfur only by the skin of her teeth). Not surprisingly, asylum-seekers have difficulty obtaining corroborating documents from the very government that is persecuting them.
We need to tighten border security, keep track of people here on temporary visas and generally get the INS to function effectively. Gutting the political asylum system has nothing to do with that. To the extent that it encourages people to stay illegal and invisible because they’ll probably just get themselves deported if they apply for asylum, it is actively harmful in that cause. None of the 9/11 hijackers were asylum seekers. To apply for asylum you have to identify yourself tothe government, tell them your life story, and have it carefully scrutinized. It’s a lousy strategy for a terrorist–it’s hell of a lot easier to get a temporary visa of one kind or another, or just overstay your tourist visa.
Fortunately, I don’t think these provisions will pass. I am confident, in a way I am not about the legalization of extraordinary rendition, that the Senate and yes, the White House, will not stand for it. But I don’t want to take that for granted. So I would like to say this:
There is a pretty decent chance that I have met people who will be deported, and perhaps beaten, imprisoned or killed if this part of the 9/11 bill passes. There is an even better chance that I have met people who would have been if this bill had passed four or five years ago.
I wrote a few months ago, around the 4th of July, that
If we’re safe, it’s not because of any of virtue on our part. It’s because of a blind, lucky accident of birth. Or, depending on your interpretation, because our parents, grandparents, or more distant ancestors risked the journey here from someplace else. Or because exactly 228 years and 5 days ago, a group of Englishmen imagined a different sort of country.
Tom DeLay’s and Dennis Hastert’s 9/11 bill would do less than the Senate version to keep us safe from terrorism at ten times the cost. It would make our country an accomplice to torture and an indifferent bystander to murder.
It simply must not pass. We’re not that sort of country.
Funny how the ACLU got this wrong:
(imagine, again, a hypothetical Christian refugee who escapes Darfur only by the skin of her teeth).
See, the Christian Sudanese were in the south, not Darfur. They are protected somewhat because President Bush pushed for, and signed The Sudan Peace Act.
The people in Darfur are black Muslims.
I realize this is nit-picking, but it looks to me that no liberal will give this administration credit for fighting Aids and opposing slavery (chattel slavery especially in Sudan, sex slavery elsewhere).
Most people, including the MSM, did not care about, did not know about, the Sudan Peace Act because it was principally supported by those right wing Christians in this country.
I guess you can consider your nit picked, DaveC, but what does it have to do with the main thrust of Katherine’s post?
Or are you saying that it’s OK to deport folks off to face torture in the name of “security?”
I thought the bill was about implementing all of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
My mistake.
By no means do I support torture. I didn’t realize that the reason for the bill is to torture people. But, put that way by all means let’s not do anything in response to the 9/11 commission.
Seriously, a single 9/11 bill is going to have many, many flaws, similar to a report by the heavily politicized 9/11 commission. In a report, Bill Frist remarked that it looks like there could be 300 amendments to the bill.
DaveC, if you believe that we *should* do something in response to the 9/11 commission report, then please contact your legislator and insist that a 9/11 bill be passed *without* adding extraneous, liberty and human rights-violating provisions. As Katherine and others have documented, the bipartisan 9/11 commission has stated their opposition to such provisions, and any such provisions will only make such a bill more difficult to pass.
Any bill will have flaws, of course, but the flaws in a 9/11 bill will be minimized if it sticks to the core recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
When thinking about the problem with asylum in the United States, it is useful to keep in mind the problems with the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, and asylum seekers associated with terrorist groups.
Check out this article that presciently mentions bin Ladin’s 1998 fatwa:
PUT BRITAIN ON THE LIST OF STATES SPONSORING TERRORISM
From EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW
January 21, 2000.
http://www.mathaba.net/data/sis/mi6-terrorism.html
I have excerpted some of the points below, sorry for the length of the post. (By the way I love ObWi and Katherine, thanks for the open forum)
=====================
Islamic Group / Islamic Jihad leaders Adel Abdul Majid and Adel Tawfiq al Sirri :
Abdel Majid was implicated in the October 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and he subsequently masterminded the escape of two prisoners jailed for the assassination. In 1991, he fled to Britain and immediately was granted political asylum. He has coordinated the Islamic Group’s overseas operations ever since. In fact, he was sentenced to death in absentia for the bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in November 1995, in which 15 diplomats were killed.
Abdel Tawfiq al Sirri, the co-director of the movement, has also been granted political asylum in Britain, despite the fact that he was also sentenced to death in absentia for his part in the 1993 attempted assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister Atif Sidqi.
***
Supporters of Sharia, headed by Abu Hamza Al-Misri, an Egyptian who was convicted of a capital offense in Egypt, but who enjoys political asylum in London, issued one of the most virulent “endorsements” of the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. Abu Hamza al-Masri presides over the Finsbury Mosque. Abu Hamza al-Masri, asylum-seeker and British citizen, was also protected by British law from extradition to Yemen.
***
Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) leader, Abou Farres was granted asylum in Britain in 1992, after he was condemned to death in Algeria for acknowledging responsibility for a bombing at Algiers airport, which killed nine people and wounded 125. Farres was believed responsible, from his base in London, for the July-September 1995 string of blind terrorist acts in France, including bombings of three Paris train and subway stations and an open-air market.
***
7 of 14 men, linked to the Luxor massacre and other earlier incidents of terrorism resided in London:
Yasser al Sirri: “Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on the life of former Prime Minister Dr. Atef Sidqi; founded the Media Observatory in London as mouthpiece for the New Vanguards of Conquest.”
Adel Abdel Bari: “At present, heads Egyptian Human Rights Defense Office, affiliated to Media Observatory in London, the mouthpiece for the outlawed Jihad Organization.”
Mustafa Hamzah: “Commander of the military branch of the outlawed `Islamic Group.’ ”
Tharwat Shehata: “Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on Dr. Atef Sidqi, former Prime Minister; associated with, and in charge of financing extremist elements abroad; involved in reactivating the outlawed `Jihad Organization’ abroad.”
Osama Khalifa: “Accused no. 1 in the case involving domestic and foreign activities of the outlawed Islamic Group.”
Refa Mousa.
Mohamed el Islambouli: “One of the principal leaders of the Islamic Group; sentenced to death in the case of the outlawed organization of `Returnees from Afghanistan.’ ”
***
Sheikh Abu Bakri Mohammad, the Syrian asylum-seeker who founded al Muhajiroun, a radical Islamic youth movement that recruits for terrorist groups.
Hi, I tried to comment on CT with this, but there is something wierd going on there – no response – but that’s OK I like ObWi about as much as CT- I like unregistered comments. (I wish Tacitus would actually get on the Tacitus site more… nice to see him in comments) Anyway here we go:
Here is my understanding of what you are saying:
No person who makes it to the US should be deported or extradited to a country that uses torture. (or in the case of European countries they cannot be sent to a country that has capital punishment). This person can then automatically claim to be an asylum seeker, if he comes from most Arab and third world countries. In particular, this applies to persons who have been convicted in absentia for crimes and have been sentenced to death.
I disagree with this point of view because this provides protection to the worst kind of criminals and terrorists. This is an example of what extreme right-wing warmongers and fascists refer to as a September 10th mindset.
Here is a short list of asylum seekers in the US:
* Ramzi Yousef: one of the attackers from the first assault on the World Trade Center
* Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman: devised plot to destroy New York City tunnels and landmarks.
* Hesham Mohamed Hadayet: the July 4th El AL assassin at LAX
* Abdel Hakim Tizegha: 1999 Millennium Plot to blow up LAX and/or Seattle’s landmark Space Needle
* Mir Aimal Kansi: murdered two CIA employees in 1993.
* Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer: tried to bomb the Brooklyn borough subway in 1997
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/Paper21/terrorism.html
===========
Canada also has problems with the asylum process
(No names for some reason, but these people are still in country):
* since 1986, a convicted terrorist and murderer from the PFLP.
* since mid 90’s a fundraiser for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
* since 1991, Iranian assassin employed by the Iranian Security Service
* since 1990’s, 6 asylum seekersknown to be either convicted or alleged terrorists with al Qaeda connections, from Algeria, Egypt, and Syria
These Canadian asylum seekers were arrested in the US:
* Abdel Hakim Tizegha, noted above, after losing asylum in the US moved to Canada before participating in the Millennium Plot
* Ahmed Ressam, from Algeria in December 1999 attempted to enter the US with a trunk load of explosives in his car as part of the Millennium Plot
Ressam was a member of a Montreal cell of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group that has strong ties to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back402.html
===========
I understand the importance of asylum because I work with people who came to the the US seeking asylum (long ago) from Cuba, Poland and Hungary. My problem is that there are actual terrorists and criminals that would be able to stay in this country in order to avoid the threat of torture.
My problem is that there are actual terrorists and criminals that would be able to stay in this country in order to avoid the threat of torture.
No one deserves to be tortured.
You don’t seem to understand how our asylum laws, the Torture Convention, and our immigration laws work at all. I should give a more detailed response but can’t at the moment.
You also seem to be conflating the asylum provisions and the extraordinary rendition provisions of the bill. The asylum provisions would not apply only or primarily to suspected terrorists. You also seem not to be grappling with the facts of the “renditions” we know of. In none of the cases I have described was the alternative allowing the person to enter the U.S.
{{{deleted for violating the posting rules}}}