An Important first step in forgiveness: war crimes in Yugoslavia

So, the Milosevic trial was a bust, but Elizabeth Pond of the Christian Science Monitor suggests that not all was lost with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Some lessons were learned.
Well, one might be to not have 66 charges against anyone, and not to take over 5 years to convict-- and oh yeah -- there's the part about making sure that your key supect has proper medical care so that he doesn't die in prison before convicted...
Milosevic died in March 2006 and so did the hope of closing the case on the Yugoslav genocide.
It raises the bigger question -- if Milosevic had lived and had been convicted of war crimes would that have started the healing? It all depends on how you see the cause of the conflict -- was it one man alone that could have created such havoc in a once multicultural country? Or, if not just one man, a handful (and some women too)?
Was it inevitable: history, past conflicts? Or as some would suggest, just fate?
This is at the heart of understanding whether a war crimes tribunal or even the ICC (International Criminal court) will help heal the wounds of human rights abuses -- or prevent future abuses.
This issue is also relevant when we look at the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda, and the inditement against Joseph Kony and his commanders. Will bringing them to the ICC bring peace to Northern Uganda? Will it help heal the wounds of the many who have lost loved ones?

Different countries had different experiences -- some have tried "Truth and Reconcilation" like South Africa, some have struggled with bringing to justice those that have overseen massive human rights abuse (like Pol Pot in Cambodia that also died before anything could be brought against him -- like any charges at all), and some still struggle with whether acknowledging wrong doing is enough -- Argentina, Chile, Guatemala.
So where does this leave us?
It is important to not let war criminals get away with their crime, but it is also important to be realistic about what can be accomplished in the present international system. Acknowledging that wrong-doing has been committed is a start, acknowledging that genocide occured is another, and acknowleging that it was not just once person or one ethnic/linguistic, or regional group is also supremely important

President Bashir -- Crimes Against Humanity?

So, the U.N. Security Council has finally got off its collective behind to try and put forward a resolution to STOP the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. But, perhaps not surprisingly, President omar Hassan al-Bashir is opposed to letting in 20,000 UN peacekeepers. He and his diplomats claim that the killing in Darfur is a problem of "underdevelopment". Oh really? Genocide is a problem of underdevelopment?
Let's try, genocide is a problem of the international system that is so focused on state sovereignity that it is allowing the murder of thousands of human beings. Maybe al-Bashir and those preventing a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur should be hauled in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity?

Mi Casa, Su Casa?

Candy Cane has posted an interesting comment. We've moved the responsibility to employers, yet the illegal immigrants are one step ahead: they have devised fake SSN that fool even the SSN administration!
So, what do we do? Just open up the borders and give up?
Although it would be a nice thought -- to get rid of borders and let human beings travel and live freely without any documentation or license -- we can't do that.
Why not?
Well, taxes for one -- the people who live here legally pay taxes
Terrorism also -- this is not just new to the 21st century -- unfortunately humans have decided that they want to kill one another -- innocent civilians as well -- so we have to monitor who comes in and goes out of our countries.
Maybe the whole focus is wrong? Yes we can build "fortress America" only to a certain extent -- what about pressure on the countries where all these illegal immigrants are coming from?
Although it is a charming thought -- not every illegal immigrant wants to come to America because they love it and what it stands for -- it's for the opporutnities, the rights and the freedoms afforded to them.
So, maybe the "developed countries" should put pressure on offending countries to offer more rights, freedoms and opportunities to their own people -- maybe then -- illegal immigrants will not be so willing to leave their countries.
After all, these individuals that Candy Cane is talking about, are looking for jobs -- they WANT to work -- so how do we make jobs for them in their own countries?

A workable immigration reform?

The longer we wait for a reasonable, workable immigration reform, the greater the problems and the more illegal immigrants that will risk their lives to come to the U.S.
The proposed Pence-Bailey proposal seems to make the most sense -- a compromise between the Senate and the House.
We do need more enforcement, and we do need more accountability from employers. We also have to make it clear that illegal immigration will not be rewarded -- however-- we have to be realistic and understand that human beings have lived in the U.S. illegally for many years. Do we punish them and their U.S. families with the ultimate: deportation and bars to entry into the U.S (3 or 10 years)?-- or do we recognize that there must be a way to discourage illegal immigration (increase enforcement at the border and at the place of employment) while ensuring that those who have come here illegally are processed just like every other immigrant to the U.S. -- either through a proposed "Ellis Island Center" or at a port of entry.
It took me 13 years to legally immigrate to the U.S., and become a citizen -- 17 years doesn't sound that long if you really want it. Surely, it doesn't take 17 years to become a legal permanent resident -- whereby you have almost all the rights of a U.S. citizen but you cannot vote, or hold public office.
This Pence-Bailey proposal sounds like a pretty good compromise to me.

Can the U.S. learn from France's Blanket Amnesty Policy?

France has established a blanket amnesty for its illegal immigrants. The amnesty focuses on illegal immigrant families with school-age children. At least one child must be born in France or arrived before the age of 13 and be in school in France for two years to be eligible.
How would this work in the U.S.? And why would this be fair? Why should people who have children be given "special rights" over all the other illegal immigrants?
What kind of precedent is France establishing? The United States did a similar thing in the 1980s with the "Dream Act". What is the answer? What do you do with all the illegal immigrants in the U.S. Do you send them back to their countries of origin? Do you allow them to remain?
What about all the people waiting for years to immigrate legally to the U.S.
More visas, laxer standards? What is the answer?

Australia gets tough on asylum seekers

So does Australia have it right? Put asylum seekers who arrive in Australian waters by boat to remote islands while they await action on their asylum cases?
What does the U.S. do with Haitian boat people? We don't even give them a chance to claim asylum: as long as they are apprehended before they touch U.S. soil (beaches or bridges for example) we send them right back to Haiti.
There are problems with the asylum process in many developing countries because short of immigrating on a family, employment or diversity visa -- people who are very poor often cannot secure legal passage to these countries. So they either arrive ilegally or they claim asylum status.
What is the solution?
Surely not putting them on islands or back on boats?

U.S. Asylum policies

An excellent study by TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) -- a reserach group connected to Syracuse University recently released a report on how U.S. immigration judges (IJs) compared in grants and denials of asylum. The report, attached in the link, shows that there were in fact wide disparities in the number of grants or denials of asylum claims in the US based on data compiled from 1994-1999 and 2000-2005. Having worked as country conditions "expert" on Ugandan and Cameroonian asylum cases, I have appeared in front of many different immigration judges in many different circuits. I have a very high sucess rate with my cases, but that is more a consequence of the fact that many big law firms taking on the cases pro bono that have requested me to serve as a "expert witness" have almost unlimited resources to prove that the asylum seeker did in fact have a "well founded fear of persecution" or did suffer past persecution (including pyschologist's reports, medical evaluations for torture etc). So, even though there is a great deal of variance between grants and rejections with different IJs based on "temperment" etc., I think the bigger issue is whether asylum seekers have access to a lawyer or not -- that truly determines whether they will win their case or not. TRAC also provides some data with regard to that issue -- 93.4% of asylum seekers are denied without an attorney, while 64% are denied with an attorney.

U.S. Immigration Reform: Open Door or Closed Door Policy?

Sixty years ago, my father went to an American consulate in Naples, Italy to put his name on a waiting list to come to America. He was a Yugoslav “displaced person” in an Allied Refugee camp in post-World War II Italy. He didn’t make it to America, much to the disappointment of his cousins in Minnesota who wrote numerous letters to Eleanor Roosevelt about my Dad. Instead, my father was eventually given passage to Wales to work in the coal mines as the equivalent of a “guest worker” until he was able to settle in Canada.

I didn’t come to America 12 years ago because I was fleeing persecution, or because there were no employment opportunities in Canada. Canada is not known for abusing the human rights of its citizens (unless maybe they don’t appreciate hockey or beer). And the last time I checked, Canada was actually higher on the United Nations Development Program Human Development Index (measuring literacy, life expectancy and economic growth) than the U.S.

So why would a highly-educated Canadian leave such a “nice country” as my Indian cabby driver in Philadelphia inquired as he drove me to my naturalization test two weeks ago?

I came to America because I believed in the American ideal/dream, and still do. Part of that ideal, is the opportunity to be whatever you want to be if you work hard enough. But the other part is respect for the rule of law. Some of my confidence in that ideal has been shattered recently, not only with regard to some of the foreign policy blunders of the current administration, but even more so with the Senate proposal to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Maybe that’s why I find myself in a somewhat awkward position these days. As a (legal) immigrant myself and as someone who studies and teaches human rights, I understand why people come to the United States illegally. Many are fleeing persecution – political and economic. For those who are fleeing political or religious persecution, there is a legal way to apply for political asylum for themselves and their families, based on the United States ratifying the Refugee Convention. But for those who are fleeing dire economic conditions and do not fit the classification of “refugee” some of the doors to immigration have been shut to them.

Increasing the possibility of legal immigration through diversity lotteries, work visas and a guest worker program enabling workers to become future citizens are all good and necessary ideas: granting amnesty to those who have jumped the line is not. Amnesty for illegal immigrants does not fix the problem – it just worsens it -- encouraging even more illegal immigrants to settle in the United States. Our borders will always be porous, no matter how many National Guard, Minutemen or homeland security officers you place on the Northern or Southern border of the United States – people will always be able to come here illegally – and they will want to stay –as will their children.

It is a dangerous precedent that the Senate is trying to establish for political gain. But even more serious, it’s simply un-American to let those who have cheated the system be rewarded with citizenship. I, like many other legal immigrants, spent a lot of time and money as did my employer in legal fees, filling out forms, taking health tests, background checks, and waiting in lines. By the time I finished the whole process, it was very clear that I really wanted to become an American citizen – it wasn’t easy – nor should it be. By granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, we are cheapening citizenship.

Even though my father qualified as a “refugee” 60 years ago, he was at the bottom of the list. I’m proud of the fact that he didn’t attempt to jump the line and come to America illegally. It took one more generation, but I settled here in his place.

My father has since passed away, but I’m sure that he was proud of me last week when I took the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, with liberty and justice for all.





I've also linked an excellent article putting into perspective the debate on immigration reform in the U.S. Couldn't have written it better myself, that's why I'm attaching it to this blog.

New start for human rights at the United Nations?

Does this sound familiar? A UN commision packed with human rights violaters, who got on as a part of regional lists? Or a UN commission that met for only six weeks every year and came up with pronouncements that were completely unimpressive? It probably does, these charateristics describe the old United Nations Human Rights Commission. However, there is a fast-paced plan to change all of that. A new commission has already been selected by secret ballot and they have already started work on the latest human rights violations. This article from the BBC outlines the new goals of the commission, as well as the United State's new feelings on the commission.

Infamous Immigration Judge Replaced

Honorable Judge Donald V. Ferlise was replaced from his Philadelphia-based Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) position. Judge Ferlise is perhaps best know for presiding over the precedent-setting FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) case of Fauziya Kassindja from Togo.
He was accused of "belligerent questioning and a failure to consider relevant evidence, "brow-beating", and "nitpicking".

I served as a country-conditions expert on Uganda on a former Lord's Resistance Army member's asylum case in May 2006. I was very nervous about appearing in front of Judge Ferlise -- his reputation certainly preceded him. But I was totally surprised by his demeanor in the courtroom. He was exceedingly polite to me and to the asylum seeker. He never rudely interupted my testimony and seemed to be genuinely interested in what I had to say. So, I have mixed feelings about this development. I can't reconcile my recent experience with Judge Ferlise with his infamous reputation. Not to necessarily defend the man, but I think that he is genuinely interested in finding the truth -- and maybe he was too quick to judge an asylum-seeker's credibility.
This is perhaps more of a shortcoming of the system, rather than the man. It's much easier to determine whether there is a well-founded fear of persecution based on objective conditions, than subjective conditions. But to win an asylum case in immigration court, an asylum seeker has to prove both an objective and subjective past persecution and/or wellfounded fear of future persecution.
So much rests on the credibility of the asylum-seeker -- and the ability of the immigration judge to determine whether the asylum seeker is telling the truth.
Maybe it's the system that's broke, not the man?