Skip to comments.
Amish Man Who Refused Photo Sues Gov't
abc ^
| 4/2/04
Posted on 04/02/2004 4:41:25 PM PST by knak
Amish Man Who Refused Photographs in Immigation Proceedings Sues Government
The Associated Press
PITTSBURGH April 2 A Canadian Amish man whose immigration application was rejected when he refused to be photographed sued the government Friday, accusing federal officials of violating his religious rights. The man is a member of the Old Order Amish, a sect that takes literally the Bible's prohibition against graven images. The man's wife, who is also Amish, is American. They are not identified in the lawsuit.
The couple, who have a daughter, want a judge to throw out federal rules requiring photographs to be submitted with a residency petition. They also ask that the man be allowed to return to the United States as a permanent resident, said their attorney, Mark Knapp.
The man first came to the United States in July 2001 as a nonimmigrant visitor after he married his wife the month before. His wife petitioned for his permanent residency, according to the lawsuit.
The couple were interviewed by immigration officials in June 2002 and told they would have to submit their photographs, according to the lawsuit. The couple refused and the petition was later denied.
According to the lawsuit, similar requests for religious exemptions have been accepted in the past.
Officials with the U.S. Attorney's office in Pittsburgh declined to comment, saying they hadn't seen the lawsuit.
In January, after the family visited Canada to see the man's sick father, the man was stopped at the border and told he could not return because he didn't have a photo ID.
The man was allowed back into the United States on Thursday so he can attend an April 21 removal proceeding. Knapp said he will ask the courts to delay that hearing until the lawsuit is heard.
TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: aliens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: auntdot
That's ridiculous. Do you really think a picture of a person will stop them from commiting a terrorist act?
(Terrorist thinking to himself): Oh crap - they have a picture of me now. I guess I can't blow anything up.
Do you think gun control "reduces crime" too?
21
posted on
04/02/2004 5:46:35 PM PST
by
Possenti
To: Possenti
Who is the real threat to our liberties? I would feel much safer with an Arab living next door to me than a Homeland Security officer. OK, what about an Arab Homeland Security officer?:)
22
posted on
04/02/2004 6:02:53 PM PST
by
Belisaurius
("Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Ted" - Joseph Kennedy 1958)
To: dpa5923
When we get to the point that our system cannot tell the difference between an Amish Old Order and a terrorist, we have lost. There is an abundance of evidence they can present including bibles, siblings, community. To think that they can be infiltrated means that our society is so infiltrated that we have already gone beyond the point of no return and are doomed. Next you can tell me the Shakers are a militant band of Islamists waiting for orders. Get a life. Do you really want to live in a society as paranoid as you proclaim?
To: Pafreedom
You're correct. The logical conclusion to this madness is that (almost) no one will trust anyone - unless it's a federal agency or the media feeding them a bunch of BS. Ashcroft already made his motives clear when he tried to implement his "citizen snoop" program, where citizens are encouraged to snitch on each other for "unusual" behavior.
Eventually, people will begin to suspect their new neighbors are secretly hatching a diabolical plan if they don't share the same race, religion or creed. The paranoia has go to stop.
24
posted on
04/02/2004 6:29:16 PM PST
by
Possenti
To: Pafreedom
You have got to be kidding. A peaceful people that limit contact with outsiders are lumped in with Islam? I don't think so Try again - you missed the point. The post I replied to was about how repressive Bush's War is on religion. An absolute bull position.
The Amish make a religious choice to live in the 17th-18th century and turn their back on modern "conveniences." Therefor the, the Amish individual can not sue when his voluntary life becomes inconvenient in a modern world. His choice to live like that - tough **** if it makes life difficult. Resorting to a lawsuit over a problem he created is bull.
Blaming that on a repressive Pres. Bush is greater bull.
Demanding absolute religious freedom of such bull invites the ludicrous idea of a Muslim suing Bush for violating his religious freedom for not letting him kill in the name of Allah.
Try thinking a little harder next time.
25
posted on
04/02/2004 6:31:17 PM PST
by
Ophiucus
To: knak
His cult says he can't indulge in the frivolous 19th century invention of a photograph, but he can indulge in the frivolous 20th Century invention of a petty lawsuit.
Some religion.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
To: knak
If he can sue over this issue then he can take the photograph because I thought that the Amish did not believe in suing or taking an oath.
To: cripplecreek
But aint that the rub.
If you allowed Amish to immigrate without photos we would have nothing to fear. If a man swore to be amish and wanted to immigrate and you required a local patriarch to vouch for him before you agreed we'd have nothing to fear.
But that can't be said for all the worlds religions.
Why do we have to harrass the amish just because the muslims can't stop blowing everything up ?
28
posted on
04/02/2004 6:36:26 PM PST
by
festus
To: festus
How is this different than the Muslim woman who wouldn't take her veil off for her driver's license?
29
posted on
04/02/2004 6:38:53 PM PST
by
Hildy
(A kiss is the unborn child knocking at the door.)
To: Criminal Number 18F
...but he can indulge in the frivolous 20th Century invention of a petty lawsuit. The petty lawsuit is far older than the 20th century. In fact, Paul makes mention of it in his first letter to the Corinthians.
30
posted on
04/02/2004 6:39:18 PM PST
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: knak
I think ALL Canadians should just stay the hell out of the USA and WE will stay the Hell out of Kanada!
31
posted on
04/02/2004 6:39:30 PM PST
by
teletech
(Friends don't let friends vote DemocRAT!)
To: auntdot
And as soon as you allow someone to come in without a picture you are setting a precedent that will permit anyone, repeat anyone, to come into our country without necessary identification, merely because he/she declares religious freedom Right someone is not allowed to cross the Canadian border without photo-identification, while people crossing the Mexican border will be given photo-identification after the event.
32
posted on
04/02/2004 6:40:43 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
("It is always tempting to impute unlikely virtues to the cute" - Reinstated Tagline)
To: Ophiucus
I doubt this guy's sincerity. How can you have an INTERNATIONAL relationship with just a horse and buggy? Just trot poor ol' Ed down I-95 and I-from Pennsylvania to Canada? He probably "cheated" in some way to get that far, he can "cheat" on the photograph.
If we let him get away with this all the terrorists will claim it's against their religion to be photographed, fingerprinted, etc.
33
posted on
04/02/2004 6:44:15 PM PST
by
Nataku X
To: Criminal Number 18F
Check 17th-18th century American history. They had lawsuits. They weren't just so big and expensive without high-priced lawyers.
34
posted on
04/02/2004 6:45:45 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
("It is always tempting to impute unlikely virtues to the cute" - Reinstated Tagline)
To: Possenti
A very small percentage believe this - Guess again - the minority believe in peace, the majority openly advocate killing and violent conquest or support it.
probably the same percentage of "Christians" who advocate killing Jews and Muslims, and the same percentage of Jews who want the "next holocaust" to include Christians and Muslims
Funny, the Bible and the Torah don't command their followers to kill Muslims but the Koran commands the death of Jews and Christians justified as the will of Allah.
The apologist position that killing Jews and Christians and enslaving those that surrender and submit - the meaning of Islam - doesn't wash.
Who is the real threat to our liberties? I would feel much safer with an Arab living next door to me than a Homeland Security officer.
And I feel a lot safer having our country and others finally fighting back against a warrior "religion" that not only declared war against all civilizations but has a supreme religious command to concur and enslave the world under their religion by any means.
35
posted on
04/02/2004 6:47:13 PM PST
by
Ophiucus
To: knak
He has the freedom to worship whomever he wants. Terrorists could easily masquerade as Amish. This is the 21st century.
36
posted on
04/02/2004 6:53:37 PM PST
by
tkathy
(Our economy, our investments, and our jobs DEPEND on powerful national security.)
To: Ophiucus
Who declared war on whom?
There's an awful lot of history there to just make simplistic statements like that.
37
posted on
04/02/2004 6:54:27 PM PST
by
Possenti
To: Hildy
How is this different than the Muslim woman who wouldn't take her veil off for her driver's license? I'd like to know the answer to your question, too.
To: Hildy
How is this different than the Muslim woman who wouldn't take her veil off for her driver's license? How it's not different: Any Amish who wants a driver's licence has to be photographed.
39
posted on
04/02/2004 7:10:48 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
("It is always tempting to impute unlikely virtues to the cute" - Reinstated Tagline)
To: knak
I thought the Amish refused to use the courts for anything
40
posted on
04/02/2004 7:14:04 PM PST
by
uncbob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson