Posted on 04/26/2003 7:17:24 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Attorney General John Ashcroft has ruled that illegal immigrants who have no known links to terrorist groups can be detained indefinitely to address national security concerns.
Mr. Ashcroft was ruling in the case of a Haitian immigrant who had won the right to be released on bail while awaiting a decision on his asylum claim. Mr. Ashcroft did not argue that the man was a security threat, but said that his release and that of others like him "would tend to encourage further surges of mass migration from Haiti by sea, with attendant strains on national security and homeland security resources."
Because immigration judges are part of the Justice Department, rulings made by Mr. Ashcroft must serve as the basis for any decisions.
The decision will have an immediate effect on Haitian immigrants in Florida. But Mr. Ashcroft said the nation's immigration judges should rule similarly in bail hearings involving other illegal immigrants when the government provides evidence that extended detention is needed to protect the country.
It was unclear how widely the policy would be enforced. But outraged advocates for immigrants said it would impose unnecessary hardships on immigrants and asylum seekers who pose no security risk.
This policy shift is the latest effort by the Bush administration to use the detention of immigrants as a tool to address security concerns and prevent terrorist attacks. In March, officials said they would detain people from Iraq and 32 other countries who arrive at airports and border crossings seeking political asylum.
The government has also detained dozens of immigrants without charge as material witnesses in terrorism cases.
This is the first time, however, that officials have decided to detain immigrants who have no links to terrorism in an effort to address broader security concerns. Until now, judges in bail hearings focused on each individual immigrant and whether he or she would return to court or pose any danger to local communities.
Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, sharply criticized the policy shift.
"It's shortsighted, it's wrong and it does not make us safer," said Elisa Massimino, who runs the Washington office of the lawyers group. "What it means is that these people will languish in detention without the opportunity to prove to a judge or anyone else that they don't pose a threat to national security."
David Joseph, the detained Haitian immigrant in question in Mr. Ashcroft's ruling, scrambled to shore last Oct. 29 along with more than 200 other Haitians after their boat ran aground off Miami. Mr. Joseph and many others applied for political asylum.
Immigration advocates and lawmakers from both parties immediately called on the president and Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida to order the Haitians' release. Some passengers have been released on bail, but Mr. Ashcroft's decision will ensure that the rest remain in detention until claims for asylum are decided.
Mr. Ashcroft said his ruling was necessary to discourage mass migration from Haiti, which he described as a staging point for Pakistanis and Palestinians hoping to enter the United States illegally, a charge that was disputed by advocates for immigrants.
He said the Coast Guard was wasting precious resources focusing on Haitians trying to enter the United States by boat. With the war against terrorists draining resources, officials lack the capacity to screen Haitian immigrants individually to determine whether they present national security risks, he said.
"Under these circumstances," Mr. Ashcroft wrote in his decision on April 17, "it is reasonable to make a determination that aliens arriving under the circumstances presented by the Oct. 29 influx should be detained rather than released on bond."
Bill Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International, said he recognized the government's right to protect the public from terrorism. But he said officials also had an obligation to asylum seekers.
"International standards state that the detention of asylum seekers should normally be avoided and is justified only in limited cases prescribed by law," Mr. Schulz said.
A sure sign it is the right policy.
Bill Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International, said he recognized the government's right to protect the public from terrorism. But he said officials also had an obligation to asylum seekers.
Putting the obligation to asylum seekers above the obligation to protect the public from terrorists is further proof of which side these people are on.
And people keep falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.
I must have missed that part of the article where they were sentenced to life in prison without parole.
From the article:
"Mr. Ashcroft did not argue that the man was a security threat, but said that his release and that of others like him 'would tend to encourage further surges of mass migration from Haiti by sea, with attendant strains on national security and homeland security resources.'"
So now the standards as to what constitutes "national security threats" are getting lower and lower, without so much as a congressional debate. Meanwhile, precedents are being established and strengthened so as to give the Attorney General the power to come up with his own laws as he sees fit, so long has he can make even a remotely plausible claim of national security. Open your eyes a little.
Forgive me. Perhaps the All Seeing, All Knowing inquest can enlighten the grasshopper.
Who are we talking about here? Everyday, hardworking, taxpaying citizens of the good old US of A? No!! We are talking about non-citizens who have illegally deposited themselves upon our shores uninvited! Did you not see the part about Middleasterners using Haiti as a jumping off point to the US?
What was that old saying about following one's own advice?
Secondly, we know perfectly well that illegal immigrants are also used as a "jumping off point" for the administration to introduce its arbitrary rule to the citizenry - witness the detention of Juan Padilla as an "illegal combatant". They start with aliens; they don't stop with them.
Second of all, can the condescension. It reveals your arrogance.
I thought Padilla WAS an alien but that doesn't matter. You assume a demonic deception on the part of this administration, one I consider the most honest we have had for awhile, at least since the last Bush, to impose a police state. You also seem to greatly underestimate, or not appreciate, the danger posed by these terrorists in illegal (and legal) alien clothes. I think the danger to our personal liberties is overstated in relation to the Patriot Act and that the governmental transgressions such as the creation of "hate crimes" and the suing of asbestos companies, tobacco companies, plus all sorts of political correctness in government, to be much more restrictive on our personal freedoms than any attempt to find and restrain terrorists.
I am sorry, but since when was Aschcroft named Herr Fuehrer? Everyone in this country deserves the right to due process before a legally competent judge. Everyone. In those cases where national security is genuinely at stake I do not have a problem with it being a military tribunal or special judge. But the notion of an INS bureaucrat incarcerating someone "Indefinitely" pending some other bureaucratic outcome is too frightening for words.
Of course, they will keep coming back with this approach, so deport them to Chile (the extreme south of South America) and let them start walking, it'll be 10 years before we see them again.
You also seem to greatly underestimate, or not appreciate, the danger posed by these terrorists in illegal (and legal) alien clothes.
Now who's being condescending? I pointed out to you that not even Ashcroft was saying that this guy was a security threat. Ergo, there's absolutely no reason he couldn't have prosecuted him under the laws of this country. But it seems all he has to do is utter the word "terrorism" and everything he does, no matter how outrageous, becomes perfectly acceptable in your view. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's because he's so honest.
And yes, Padilla was a citizen, and yes it matters: You said at #12: "Who are we talking about here? Everyday, hardworking, taxpaying citizens of the good old US of A? No!! We are talking about non-citizens who have illegally deposited themselves upon our shores uninvited!" If the Attorney General can just start making up the law as he goes when it comes to aliens, he can do it when it comes to citizens.
Definition of the Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy
Enjoy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.