Posted on 10/26/2002 3:08:06 PM PDT by Sabertooth
|
|
| INS decision to free Malvo defended |
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, October 26, 2002 - WASHINGTON - A Justice Department official Friday defended the Immigration and Naturalization Service's decision to set John Lee Malvo free even though the Jamaican teenager faced possible deportation. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, rejected criticism voiced by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who attacked the INS decision on Thursday. Tancredo made his charge shortly after Malvo, 17, and John Allen Muhammad, 41, were described by the leaders of a state and federal police task force as the two individuals responsible for the deaths of 10 people in a series of sniper shootings that terrorized the Washington, D.C., area. The Justice official said the agency acted properly in Malvo's case because it does not require the posting of bonds for juvenile immigrants who are arrested with their parents. In this case, Una James, Malvo's mother, who was also accused of entering the United States illegally with her son, was required to post a $1,500 bond, pending a Nov. 20 deportation hearing. Malvo, then 16, was released into the custody of his mother, which is standard INS policy, the official said. James and Malvo were cited by a Border Patrol officer in January for illegally entering the United States after Bellingham, Wash., police investigated an incident at a homeless shelter where they were living. They told the officer that they had arrived in the United States as stowaways on a ship filled with Asians, Tancredo said. Although the Border Patrol officer who cited them in Bellingham listed them as stowaways, the Justice Department official said they were not stowaways under U.S. law. A stowaway does not have the right to be released on bond, the official said. The Justice official said that after their arrest, another INS official reclassified their arrest to allow them to be released, pending their November hearing on the illegal-entry charges. Tancredo said Friday that decision was wrong because the officer who arrested them also described the two as likely to flee. "Just letting them go is not one of your options," Tancredo said.
|
C'mon, INS. If you're gonna defend your lameness, at least do so on the record.
If we do, we risk getting fired. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
If we follow the law, like letting this kid walk, we are damned. If we jail a juvenile, we are damned.
Hindsight is 20/20.
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using JIHAD IN AMERICA, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | JIHAD IN AMERICA | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Who was the "other INS official" who reclassified their arrest? I'll bet that Michelle Malkin finds out. She's on the case, and she's a tiger.
Well, If they weren't stowaways what were they? Looks like the Justice Dept. is changing the facts to fit the circumstances. I wonder why?
The reporter offers, without explanation, that:
The Justice official said that after their arrest, another INS official reclassified their arrest to allow them to be released, pending their November hearing on the illegal-entry charges.
In other words, they were stowaways and therefore ineligible for release. (In fact, there are other accounts in which Malvo's mother readily admits to such.) So it would seem the paperwork was changed for the express purpose of allowing their release.
The agent's motive must be determined, and all previous and subsequent such actions also scrutinized.
No!?
If he's illegal, then deport his sorry butt - you don't let him roam free for the better part of a year while you twiddle your collective thumbs!
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Your understanding is wrong.
They were not stowaways. You can not stowaway in a homeless shelter. The mother stated she entered the country as a stowaway, but she was apprehended inside the US, in a homeless shelter.
At their time of apprehensions, they were not stowaways and the INS has no proof they were stowaways. Per the law, bond was set on the mother and she bonded out until her hearing. The child, a minor, required no such bond.
The scope and mission of the INS need to be narrowed and focused. Neither the pro-immigration nor anti-immigration forces seem to really want a system that works. For their own short term opportunism, they would prefer a system that does not work. One evidence of this is that both sides repeat lies and bogus statistics.
Your understanding is wrong.
Michelle Malkin recently had the following to say. Is she correct? Has INS management decided to override the law?
According to the Detention and Deportation Officers' Field Manual:
"Occasionally, you may encounter an alien who claims to be a stowaway, but cannot or will not provide information concerning the name of the vessel of arrival. Prior to April 1, 1997, such aliens could be handled in the same way as any other EWI [entered without inspection] case and placed into removal proceedings. The [Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act], however, directs that stowaways, regardless of when encountered, are to be removed without a hearing.citing section 235(a)(2) of the Act as the authority for the action."
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.