Ill and in Pain, Detainee Dies in U.S. Hands - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

WFCY · #31 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

No it would not be a violation of international law/UN charters because those countries now will no longer torture. Some of those folks were kids when they came over, they are now grown adults and their families signed papers vowing never to go back to those countries (Romania, the Ukraine, Poland, Hungary etc) but now that the governments are open its not too much of a problem. We wouldn't send them back if we suspected even an ounce of a chance of them being tortured on return.

However i'm not even sure what the status is on them if they are in the country now and on asylum laws with countries no longer living under tyranny, i think technically they are still fine unless they apply for citizenship in which case they then break the immigration laws by fraudulantly trying to become a citizen on the same asylum grounds, which don't apply as they are no longer in fear of their lives etc. I'll have to check i think.

Yeah, you check. I doubt that all the countries that have "normalized" relations with the US are not torturing. For a while and some even now, we are buddies with Uzbekistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia etc, which are on the bottom of Freedom House Freedom in the World report. And I know that we deport people back to Saudi Arabia, Haiti, etc, though they are not in Eastern Europe, they definitely torture.

Traveler · #32 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stapo

First of all thx to Thorhammer and Traveler

My question was just meant in a general sense; it's a bit hard to ask a "correct" question concerning this case, if one only has one article to learn about it and one is not really familar/hyperconcerned about the system.

Okay in the general sense if he just comes over on a non migrant Visa (basically visitor or migrant worker, and VWP for elligable countries) it takes 5 years residency after marriage or combination of the 5 years residency and marriage to get a right to apply for citizenship.

A marriage visa is one of only 3 circumstances you can stay beyond 90 days on a VWP.

If you're already married then you get a 10 year visa to enter but before the 10 is up i don't think you can apply for citizenship.

However if you violate the law when you're here you will be deported irrelevant of your status if you haven't gotten citizenship.

Traveler · #33 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by WFCY

Yeah, you check. I doubt that all the countries that have "normalized" relations with the US are not torturing. For a while and some even now, we are buddies with Uzbekistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia etc, which are on the bottom of Freedom House Freedom in the World report. And I know that we deport people back to Saudi Arabia, Haiti, etc, though they are not in Eastern Europe, they definitely torture.

We generally will look a lot further into the details of the case if it involved countries with abhorrent human rights records like some you mentioned. While Uzbekistan and Kazhakstan do indeed have bad records of the way they treat some of their citizens we have never accepted asylum claims from them in the first place and there are few direct flights between the nations so they're generally sent to the last POE if they try seek refuge and are rejected so anyone who is going back there is usually for a criminal/civil immigration violation, so little likelyhood of any repurcussions on return.

solletica · #34 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Well, apparently healthy apart from the cancer.....

No, reason for being arrested - overstayed his Visa in violation of the law.
His excuse for violating the law was the mis-delivery of the notice.

How, pray tell, Dr. WFCY, did you make that determination? You know exactly when he contracted cancer?

You're in the wrong line of work as an internet "revolucionario". You should be out saving the world with your amazing medical knowledge.

There are several things wrong with what happened to Mr. Ng.

And also, several things wrong with your claims, such as the vapid suggestion that a case like this would be grounds for a "pre-emptive strike".

There is plainly a need for standards to ensure that those being detained are provided competent medical care. Regardless of the reason for their detention, they are in the care and custody of the government, and as such the government as a moral as well as a legal duty to provide such care.

Matt

He shouldn't have been detained in the first place. For the govt. to detain someone who came to the US, worked hard, made a career for himself, and committed no other crimes other than merely overstaying his Visa is a waste of taxpayer $$, including my tax $$,

kinda like spending $15 million+ prosecuting someone for lying about a BJ under oath is a waste of taxpayer $$.

MattLarson · #35 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

He shouldn't have been detained in the first place. For the govt. to detain someone who came to the US, worked hard, made a career for himself, and committed no other crimes other than merely overstaying his Visa is a waste of taxpayer $$, including my tax $$,

Perhaps so, but the law as it reads right now makes what he did a criminal offense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

kinda like spending $15 million+ prosecuting someone for lying about a BJ under oath is a waste of taxpayer $$.

Or like introducing something utterly irrelevant and off-topic like that into a thread like this?

Matt

Marcus1124 · #36 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

AjaxPress
I think I've deduced the function of the Department of Homeland Security: to secretly round people up so that they can be detained indefinetly. There are rumors going around that in order to make the DHS sound less intimidating Bush is going to rename it the Ministry of Love.

Well, if you're basing this marvelous deduction of your's on this article, it is utterly baseless and infantile. There was nothing "secret" about the fact that this guy was taken into custody or held, nothing at all.

Now, if the facts of this article are accurate, it sounds like a typical story of what happens when you let bureaucrats run things, a lesson to those idiots who would have our healthcare industry run by government.

WFCY · #37 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

We generally will look a lot further into the details of the case if it involved countries with abhorrent human rights records like some you mentioned. While Uzbekistan and Kazhakstan do indeed have bad records of the way they treat some of their citizens we have never accepted asylum claims from them in the first place and there are few direct flights between the nations so they're generally sent to the last POE if they try seek refuge and are rejected so anyone who is going back there is usually for a criminal/civil immigration violation, so little likelyhood of any repurcussions on return.

Right. I appreciate your expertise knowledge in this area, keep posting!

Traveler · #38 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

He shouldn't have been detained in the first place. For the govt. to detain someone who came to the US, worked hard, made a career for himself, and committed no other crimes other than merely overstaying his Visa is a waste of taxpayer $$, including my tax $$,

Oh knock it off...it is a violation of his immigration status which makes him elligable to be deported.

Heck the DHS don't actually even need a reason to revoke a visa/deny entry (in connection with the CBP) so this guy's issue was a legitimate issue.

Traveler · #39 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by WFCY

Right. I appreciate your expertise knowledge in this area, keep posting!

Yeah will do, i'm trying to think back to what else i helped proccess in that place.

There is a different standard we meet for any asylum laws than any criminal/civil violations.

We have written confirmations from the countries in question that they will not torture.

With Uzbekistan and Kayazhstan we will also look carefully if deporting someone who otherwise works for their central government.

O'sullivan knows immigration law like the back of his hand so he may well be the best personto come in on this thread.

solletica · #40 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Perhaps so, but the law as it reads right now makes what he did a criminal offense.

So do you think it was appropriate for the govt. to enforce the law in this particular case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Or like introducing something utterly irrelevant and off-topic like that into a thread like this?

Not off-topic--I was using the Starr prosecution as an analogy to illustrate the nature of the govt.'s reaction in this case, pointing out that they were similar.

Here, this might help. . .

Quote:

analogy

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jç\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
Date: 15th century
1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity

analogy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

solletica · #41 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Oh knock it off...it is a violation of his immigration status which makes him elligable to be deported.

In this case, deportation would've been preferable to detention.

MattLarson · #42 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

So do you think it was appropriate for the govt. to enforce the law in this particular case?

Whether or not I feel it was appropriate is irrelevant.

Matt

Traveler · #43 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

In this case, deportation would've been preferable to detention.

Well yes, but he was the one who was appealing it and we do give immigrants/alien immigrants a right to challenge their detention and or deportation.

Would you rather we gave them no chance in a court of law?

Traveler · #44 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

Not off-topic--I was using the Starr prosecution as an analogy to illustrate the nature of the govt.'s reaction in this case, pointing out that they were similar.

Oh for the love of God, half of these laws were enacted by Bill Clinton and made more stringent after 9/11, and some of the immigration judges sitting on the bench were also his appointed.

I wasn't gonna say anything earlier but if you have outside grievances to bring try not to bring in the defense of those who helped harden the laws against your cause.

solletica · #45 (**permalink**) 08-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Well yes, but he was the one who was appealing it and we do give immigrants/alien immigrants a right to challenge their detention and or deportation.

Would you rather we gave them no chance in a court of law?

If he didn't have the $$ for real lawyers, he already had no chance the moment he was picked up (and I suspect that was the case here).

Remember, "rights" in the US have a price tag. I believe the 5th Amendment is around $2,257,800 per case (last I checked).

And so if one cannot afford them, he/she needs to find illicit means of eluding the govt.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode