In a recent NYT editorial (see link above), one of the most disturbing aspects of recent changes to U.S. Immigration and asylum law is the provision that someone who was actually a victim of terrorism, can now be considered a terrorist. The editorial focuses on several real examples of individuals who were victims of terrorists, but because they dug a grave for Colombian rebels (which could have been their own) or were forced to be sexual slaves for Liberian guerrillas, they do not qualify for resettlement. As the NYT editorial points out, the law makes no exception for "duress".
This goes against all good moral judgement and fairness. How can this be?
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
War against Euphoria
Hate Hope and Human Rights At least that's what the addicts describe it as. In 2020 alone, an estimated 9.5 million Americans, just A...
-
The United States has consistently tiptoed around Chinese human rights issues. An American politician may occasional issue a condemnation ...
-
Dowry is a gift of money or valuables given by the family of the bride, to the family of the groom at the time of marriage. Though initially...
4 comments:
What a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit. First a bunch of gang raping rebels
sticks it to you, then you get it again by our great government. So typical, if you ask me we don’t do enough to force corrupt countries into treating their citizens in a humane way.
I think we should stop “free trade” with any country to which we’ve given political asylum to former citizens or residents.
If your country of origin is so corrupt we’re obligated to grant you aslyum then we don’t need to be trading with that country-even if they have oil.
Does anybody disagree we should have moral & just international trade and not enrich our enemies?
Dear Madmax:
how uncharacteristic of you!
You actually agree with us?
How can that be?
This is not me: but my class: they would like to know if you finally woke up on the right side of the bed?
I don't know that we would go so far as stop free trade -- you have just offered another extreme example...
Maybe stop foreign aid, but not free trade because it would harm innocent citizens that still live in the country..
But it doesn't seem that you really care about the rest of the world,now do you?
Dr. D.
Where is your anger coming from? It seems quite anti-intellectual that you would attack someone for simply disagreeing with your views.
What I really want to know is do you really think that the citizens of corrupt countries receive any aide or benefit of free trade. It’s been my belief that this remuneration is enjoyed only by the elites of these nations. Provided this is the case I see no reason to continue in trades with these appalling countries
Javajane
I’m sorry but I disagree with the foreign aid being managed by NGO’s. Often times these organizations can be as corrupt as the countries they are trying to help. There is just no checks and balances within these governments. I think that any aide given needs to audited by accounting firms contracted by the country giving the aid.
As far as free trade goes…….the United States maintains economic and trade sanctions and embargoes against targeted foreign countries, groups, organizations, and individuals. As of August 2001, the U.S. has sanctions and embargoes against Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I don’t think that they go far enough. More countries should be added to this list.
Post a Comment