Court refuses asylum for Chinese couple claiming abortion threats

Associated Press (via San Jose Mercury News) ^ | 6 December 2002

[CounterCounterCulture]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A couple who claimed they fled China to escape threats of forced sterilization and abortion have been denied asylum by a federal appeals court.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals had earlier said Xu Ming Li and Xin Kui Yu were ineligible for asylum. In an opinion filed Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

[Bella_Bru]

Ahhh...but they too are coming here for a better life to raise their kids (though you couldn't tell by a drive through East LA).

Are we going to let every Chinese citizen in who wants more than 1 child to come in? And then are we going to help pay for thweir kids, because, it is soooooo cruel to not help them out with some welfare.

[ArrogantBustard]

How come the USA is supposed to be the safety valve for a Chinese birth German Jew control policy? I resent this. Rightly or wrongly the Chinese German government has a policy to prevent overpopulation provide lebensraum. Are we supposed to be the off loading zone for Chinese Jews who cannot abide by this policy?

Incidentally, Saint Franklin Delano Roosevelt agreed with you.

[agrace]

What about it do you think is reasonable? How is forced sterilization or forced abortion reasonable in any society?

[MHGinTN]

They are more likely (based on past experiences) to be wage earners and solid American citizens who appreciate family and value freedom ... something the left coast could use a whole lot more of and doesn't want to happen.

[Bella_Bru]

But just how many are you going to give asylum to? 1 million? Maybe 2?

[ArrogantBustard]

That would make up for the million or so we kill every year in "safe, legal" abortion facilities.

[hopespringseternal]

Ahhh...but they too are coming here for a better life to raise their kids (though you couldn't tell by a drive through East LA).

"A better life" is not a good enough reason. Abortion and sterilization is.

Are we going to let every Chinese citizen in who wants more than 1 child to come in?

That does present a problem in the abstract. Absent any indication that a million a day are showing up, it doesn't seem to be a practical problem.

And then are we going to help pay for thweir kids, because, it is soooooo cruel to not help them out with some welfare.

No.

[dennisw]

What about it do you think is reasonable? How is forced sterilization or forced abortion reasonable in any society?

Population control is reasonable in an overcrowded nation. I don't have a humane solution for those who rebel against such a policy and want to scam up an asylum claim here. All I know is some nations are becoming densely populated and there has to be some limit. The logical conclusion of your thinking is that there is no limit. That somehow the Lord will provide. That China can handle a population of 10 billion on up.

[dennisw]

OK. I happen to be Jewish. Got anything else to throw at me?

[ArrogantBustard]

I happen to be Jewish

Shalom. But for the purposes of debate, that's completely irrelevant. It's also an odd sort of argumentum ad hominem, in which you would (apparently) forbid me drawing certain historical parallels because of the ethnic/religious background of the one I'm debating. I don't accept that. Deal with it.

The historical facts remain: German Jews fled Nazi Germany, because the totalitarian dicator running the place wanted to kill them. Chinese are fleeing Communist China because the totalitarian dictator running the place wants to mutilate them and kill their children. (S)FDR really did turn away a literal boatload of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. I've no interest in being to Red China as (S)FDR was to Nazi Germany. (S)FDR had possibly the excuse of not knowing what the Nazis were up to. We certainly do not have that excuse regarding Red China.

[Bella_Bru]

And the million or so children that will never even happen the "bad" couples using birth control.

[ArrogantBustard]

Thank you for helping make my point. We're aborting and contracepting ourselves out of existence. I suppose that's just peachy with you.

[HighRoadToChina]

How about 6 million. As in 6 million Jews.

Or maybe that cruise ship carrying 937 Jews that left Hamburg, Germany, seeking freedom from Nazi terror. Almost all had paid for both passage and papers which would legally entitle them to disembark in Cuba. When the ship reached Havana, it was not permitted to dock. Setting sail for Miami, the ship was intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard and warned to sail on. The ship was forced to return to Europe. More than half of the passengers died in the Holocaust.

Let me quote from the Talmud: "To save one life is as if you have saved the world"

[agrace]

(S)FDR had possibly the excuse of not knowing what the Nazis were up to.

He knew. It was being reported here in the US as early as 1942.

[Bella_Bru]

I have no problem with contraception. I see too many people living off of the governement because they have more kids than they can afford.

My wallet and bank account are not open them.

[tallhappy]

So why aren't they married?</Dr. Laura mode>

Read the article. They applied to be married and the government did not give them permission.

In China one's workgroup must give people permission to be married. In their case the reason was they were too young. In other cases, the workgroup can deny a marriage for anything they want.

[pray4liberty]

Where's the leftist tolerance and compassion I hear so much about?

It's selective, and might I add, racist. Asian people need not apply.

[hchutch]

You are absolutely correct about this situation. This is a travesty - and quite frankly, another sign that immigration policy is broken, and needs to be fixed.

Here, in this country, we have a chance to prevent an act that is barbaric - a FORCED abortion and FORCED sterilization. The people involved are FLEEING persecution because they're not willing to KILL their child. This family is trying to choose LIFE for their unborn child, and the ChiComs are going to kill it for no other reason than the parents told their police state where to shove it.

We are not talking an abstract situation here, we're talking a life - a life that an oppressive government wants to end for some reason. I, for one, do NOT think that we should be accomplices to INFANTICIDE.

I disagree with dennisw - there IS a humane solution to this. Anyone who makes it to our country OR who applies for asylum at our embassy in an effort to escape this barbaric policy that the People's Republic of China ought to be permitted to remain.

I'm hoping this ruling gets overturned, and I'm also going to write my Representatives using dead trees to make it so the laws of this country will - and I'll take on all comers over this one.

How is this any different than sending Elian back to Cuba?

[Bella_Bru]

I know that story.

As to the article though, how about this: Sure, you can come here and have your kids, BUT, we aren't giving you a penny to help raise them.

[AnnaZ]

You can count on the 9th Circuit. They're always wrong.

Amen. And exactly.

 

From the FR thread Ninth Circuit Declares War on Gun Owners 

Balancing the Ninth

Earlier this month the Supreme Court issued its ruling in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, the closely-watched "medical marijuana" case. By a vote of eight to zero (Justice Breyer recused himself because his brother was the district court judge in the case below), the Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and reached the unsurprising conclusion that properly authorized federal law prevails over state law. It was a holding as old as the Constitution itself, which provides in Article VI that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land." One might challenge the application of federal drug laws to wholly intrastate manufacture and distribution as outside the scope of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause, but that claim was not part of the case. Instead, the Ninth Circuit had held that there was an implied "medical necessity" exemption to the federal drug laws. The Supreme Court unanimously held otherwise.

It was the fifth time the Ninth Circuit had been reversed in a month. Seven of eight cases already decided by the high Court this year from the Ninth Circuit have been reversed, and six of those seven were by unanimous or nearly unanimous rulings. A few years ago, the Supreme Court even took the extraordinary step of issuing a special order barring the Ninth Circuit from issuing any further last-minute rulings in a death penalty case. The year I was fortunate enough to serve as a law clerk at the Supreme Court, 28 of 29 cases from the Ninth Circuit resulted in reversals. It is almost as if one could write a word processing macro — call it the [Alt-9] macro — which would automatically insert at the end of any opinion involving a case from the Ninth Circuit the following conclusion: "The opinion of the Ninth Circuit is reversed; the decision of the Court is unanimous."

14 posted on 12/06/2002 10:40 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]