Asylum Rulings Arbitrary, Study Shows
This article in the New York Times discusses the study which points out that who the judge is and where the case is argued has a lot to do with who gets asylum and who doesn't. I just saw the article and so haven't read it yet, but asylum is something that we should re-think, anyway. Asylum was used back in the day to embarrass communist countries, who did not allow their people to leave (knowing they'd lose all their best people in a matter of years to the more affluent free-market nations of the west). It was handy in the cold-war, but then liberals began to agitate for asylum from non-communist countries since that would embarrass our government for supporting repressive right-wing regimes. It makes no sense today - there are about 4.5 billion people in the world (rough estimate) living in non-democratic lands - do we allow them all to come here? Or just anyone who manages to sneak in or overstay their visa? Anyway it's administered, asylum-granting is guaranteed to be arbitrary.
posted by ziel | 5/31/2007 08:47:00 AM
3 Comments:
Ziel: What are you, late for your train? How do you post based on an article you haven't read? Slacker. I read the article and it is defiitely disturbing. The disparities geographically, by gender, etc. are shocking.
The solution seems easy to me. Let's create a new cable channel and have applicants apply with a 60 second appeal. The public can then vote (on a 900 # that raises money for the government) as to whether the person gets in or goes back. Sort of like the old Roman thumbs up, thumbs down vote in the lion's den.
Seriously, I agree that we need to take a close look at this. Do we have to allow in all French Communists, given the recent election results there? How do we turn down Iraqi Sunnis? or Shites?
Palestinianes (sp?) ?
It's a slippery slope.
Harlem
I like where harlem is going with this. Whatever we decide, in one way or another, lions should be involved.
Harlem, yes, I should have at least posted a follow-up once I finished the article. The only meaningful take-away I got was that the immigration bureaucracy is ill-equipped to make tough decisions on a consistent basis. With a Democrat in the white house, we know which way the newly appointed judges will rule - the interests of the American People are unlikely to weigh heavily in the decisions.
Post a Comment
<< Home