Posted on 06/02/2009 8:44:27 PM PDT by Jubal Harshaw
Stephen Whittle, left, and Simon Sheppard , convicted of disseminating hate speech in Britain, skipped bail and came to Los Angeles in July 2008, thinking they’d find asylum in the U.S., where such laws are less stringent. Instead, they have spent the last 10 months held in the Santa Ana city jail after a federal immigration judge denied them asylum and put them on a slow track back to Britain.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Being convicted abroad of the "crime" of peacefully expressing one's beliefs is just about the best reason for a foreigner to be granted asylum, in my opinion. We may think that beliefs in question may themselves be odious or wrong, but persecution simply for holding and expressing those beliefs shocks the American conscience. If anyone is to be granted asylum from oppressive governments, who better to be granted asylum than those who would otherwise be imprisoned for their beliefs?
What say you?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
These were not a pair of peaceful protestors, they were convicted for what is a crime in their country and are fugitives. They skipped bail and ran.
Furthermore they are not American citizens and technically our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not apply to them.
That's why this immigration Judge can legally hold them and have them sent back to stand trial in their own country.
If they were convicted of some other crime (such as murder or rape) we sure wouldn't want them walking our streets here, would we?
On a personal level, ick. Don’t wanna give those two asylum.
I don’t think we should give asylum to every person who breaks his nation’s laws that aren’t our laws. Asylum is more for those who are persecuted because of what they are, not what they do, who cannot escape persecution (not exclusively, but mostly.) Do we give asylum to Iraqi Christian winesellers because they are winesellers, or because they are Christians?
We can’t give the whole world our Constitutional rights - they have to make them for themselves.
Correction: sent back to serve out their sentences
They should have tried to pass as Mexican!
Suckers! They should have just snuck in like every other Third World lowlife.
I say your correct as a son of Togo is now a family member.
(BTW Harshaw is an old AZ mining town that I have explored)! :^)
http://www.ghosttowns.com/states/az/harshaw.html
I don't know the full story; perhaps the "hate speech" they were convicted of "disseminating" in the UK would be unlawful as libel, sedition, threats etc. are here. My view is, if they could legally say it here, they shouldn't be sent back to be punished for it there.
Likewise, we (used to?) grant political asylum to people from countries where religion (or other-than-approved religion) is a crime.
A far cry from granting sanctuary to a rapist; that's illegal here, too.
The immigration judge is not doing that. He is enforcing our law against admitting fugitives/convicted criminals into our country. In the eyes of American law, it is irrelevant what the conviction is for, or even if what they did is not a crime in our country. It is up to the country of origin to enforce their own laws, and Britain has said to America, you've got our guys, we want them back.
From a human standpoint, I don't like it any more than you do, but the rule of law is not something to be invoked when convenient and tossed aside when our sympathies are triggered. They have to go on what is on the books.
To be fair, we can try to work out a deal with Britain in that by our holding them they have done their time here, but I doubt it would fly. If you don't like immigration law as it stands, you have to put pressure on your Congressman to change it.
Since they did it there, they would be punished there. If they did it here, and then Britain says, our citizens are doing something illegal (under British law) in your country, hand them over, then we could tell Britain "Sorry, but no."
These guys can make lemons out of lemonade, they can write a book about their experiences with this whole tangle and get rich.
We have one of those? Why wasn't it enforced against the fugitive Mikhail Baryshnikov? Or Viktor Belenko, who stole a military jet in order to become a fugitive?
If you don't believe laws are selectively enforced-- when convenient and tossed aside when our sympathies are triggered-- you're being naive.
It was during the Cold War, and our guys needed their information. They were debriefed and yes perhaps the law was set aside. A deal is a deal so to speak. Talk or we send you back.
Sorry. I don't buy it, and will never countenance sending people like these Brits back-- unless it turns out what they did amounts to a crime in this country as well. You cannot convince me otherwise.
If you think Russian ballet dancers weren't KGB during that time, think again.
there is no reason for these attacks against Jewish people, it only gives a mixed message who the BNP party is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.