Georgetown professor Viet Dinh delivered a scathing review of the Supreme Court's truculent recent jurisprudence regarding rights of enemy combatants detained by U.S. military forces outside the U.S., whether in Iraq or Guantanamo.
Dinh said the Court's recent decisions have gone beyond judicial supremacy, beyond even judicial triumphalism, to something worse - judicial exclusivism, in which the legislative and executive roles have been reduced to the decision whether or not to suspend the right of habeas corpus.
Dinh notes that the current state of the law, which Chief Justice Roberts has described as "Constitutional bait-and-switch," grants more rights to enemy combatants than to Haitian refugee applicants and, indeed, to U.S. military personnel.
He says it is a result of Constitutional brinksmanship in which a majority of the Court has shown disdain for the Constitutional roles of Congress and the Executive roles in the War on Terror.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Tancredo Proposes Legal Firewall Against British-style Sharia
One wonders how long it would take the 9th Circuit, the federal appeals court that prevented the deportation of a Jamaican homosexual criminal child seducer, to invalidate the law proposed by Rep. Tancredo here. If Congress wants to enact a measure that will withstand the opposition of adversaries with lifetime appointments, it must be accompanied by a very clear statutory exclusion of federal judiciary jurisdiction.Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Measure in Wake of U.K. Certification of Islamic Courts
“Jihad Prevention Act” would deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Sharia’ law, expel Islamists already here
WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.
According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”
Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.
“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty,” said Tancredo. “The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”
Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.
Tancredo pointed to the results of a recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion as evidence that the U.S. should act to prevent the situation in Great Britain from replicating itself here in the United States. The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide.
“We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives,” concluded Tancredo. “If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.”
Labels:
Great Britain,
ICE,
sharia,
sovereignty,
Tancredo,
U.K.
9th Circuit Halts Deportation of Homosexual Criminal Who Fears Persecution in His Native Jamaica
A federal appeals court has overturned a Board of Immigration Appeals order to deport a 30-year old Jamaican homosexual man after he was convicted of sexual abuse and contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor.
The three-judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel held that the U.S. is not entitled to deport Damion Nathanial Bromfield to his native Jamaica, despite his criminal convictions, because of the risk that he might be persecuted.
The U.S. Department of Justice argued that the Ninth Circuit has no jurisdiction over Bromfield's case because he was found removable on the basis of his conviction for an aggravated felony. But the panel cited the Ninth Circuit's own Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), to justify its intervention on behalf of the foreign man.
The appellate panel's order "will require the (Immigration Judge) to consider the Jamaican law criminalizing homosexual conduct and the frequency with which that law is enforced," in adjudicating his removal, and the removal of any future homosexual criminal who expresses a similar fear of persecution in his homeland.
Circuit Judge Betty B. Fletcher wrote the opinion. Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez also sat on the panel, along with a federal district judge for the Northern District of California, William W. Schwarzer, sitting "by designation."
The full text of the opinion is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0575844p.pdf.
The three-judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel held that the U.S. is not entitled to deport Damion Nathanial Bromfield to his native Jamaica, despite his criminal convictions, because of the risk that he might be persecuted.
The U.S. Department of Justice argued that the Ninth Circuit has no jurisdiction over Bromfield's case because he was found removable on the basis of his conviction for an aggravated felony. But the panel cited the Ninth Circuit's own Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), to justify its intervention on behalf of the foreign man.
The appellate panel's order "will require the (Immigration Judge) to consider the Jamaican law criminalizing homosexual conduct and the frequency with which that law is enforced," in adjudicating his removal, and the removal of any future homosexual criminal who expresses a similar fear of persecution in his homeland.
Circuit Judge Betty B. Fletcher wrote the opinion. Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez also sat on the panel, along with a federal district judge for the Northern District of California, William W. Schwarzer, sitting "by designation."
The full text of the opinion is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0575844p.pdf.
Labels:
9th Circuit,
Board of Immigration Appeals,
felon,
molester,
persecution
What happens when illegal aliens get arrested?
by Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com
A public-interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption has presented oral arguments in two separate California appellate cases dealing with illegal immigration.
In the first case, Judicial Watch has filed an appeal on behalf of a San Francisco resident, challenging the sanctuary policy of that city's police department. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton says San Francisco police are prohibited from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest a suspected illegal immigrant for a narcotics offense.
"The appellate court heard arguments as to whether or not San Francisco's sanctuary policy should leave it immune from having to follow California state law that requires it to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement anyone they suspect who's been arrested for narcotics offenses who is not an American citizen," Fitton explains.
The other appeal, according to Fitton, deals with an illegal alien day-labor site in Laguna Beach.
"We filed a lawsuit on behalf of taxpayers who object to tax dollars going to help illegal aliens get illegal jobs in violation of federal law," Fitton adds. "A lower court, unfortunately, didn't really want to address the issue in a way that we found appropriate, so we appealed, and the appellate court heard arguments there, too."
Fitton says California law requires the courts to publish their rulings within 90 days, so they should know something by Christmas.
OneNewsNow.com
A public-interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption has presented oral arguments in two separate California appellate cases dealing with illegal immigration.
In the first case, Judicial Watch has filed an appeal on behalf of a San Francisco resident, challenging the sanctuary policy of that city's police department. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton says San Francisco police are prohibited from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest a suspected illegal immigrant for a narcotics offense.
"The appellate court heard arguments as to whether or not San Francisco's sanctuary policy should leave it immune from having to follow California state law that requires it to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement anyone they suspect who's been arrested for narcotics offenses who is not an American citizen," Fitton explains.
The other appeal, according to Fitton, deals with an illegal alien day-labor site in Laguna Beach.
"We filed a lawsuit on behalf of taxpayers who object to tax dollars going to help illegal aliens get illegal jobs in violation of federal law," Fitton adds. "A lower court, unfortunately, didn't really want to address the issue in a way that we found appropriate, so we appealed, and the appellate court heard arguments there, too."
Fitton says California law requires the courts to publish their rulings within 90 days, so they should know something by Christmas.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Immigrant Immortalized in Rosenthal Photo, Iwo Jima Sculpture, Now Naturalized
Fred Edwards wrote Aug. 1 in Military Matters in Review that Czech immigrant Michael Strank, killed in action at Iwo Jima, has been posthumously awarded U.S. citizenship. Strank himself apparently never applied for citizenship before his death at age 25 leading a Marine Corps fire team against the Japanese.
But a fellow Marine serving in the security unit at the U.S. Embassy in the Slovak Republic filed on Strank's behalf last year, and an immigration official presented a certificate of citizenship to Strank's younger sister late last month.
Iwo Jima Flag-raising Hero Becomes an Official American
by Fred Edwards, Military Matters in Review
On July 29, Marine Sgt. Michael Strank was posthumously awarded a certificate of U.S. citizenship. Jonathan Scharfen, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, presented the certificate to Mary Pero, 75, Strank's younger sister.
The ceremony took place in front of the U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial, often called the Iwo Jima Memorial. Sculptor Felix de Weldon crafted it from the famous photograph snapped by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal Feb. 23,1945.
De Weldon's work reproduced Strank -- and the other five men who raised the flag -- so meticulously that you can see their grime and smell their sweat. Strank, or Sergeant Mike, as his men called him, was the third from the left in the photo, and was barely visible.
Two of the six men would live to walk off the island. A third man would be carried off with shrapnel wounds. The other three would be buried in the sands of Iwo. This reflects the same casualty rate of the invading forces: during 36 days of fighting, the United States suffered almost 26,000 casualties, nearly 7,000 of them killed. Only one of every three who hit the beach left the island unscathed.
Until this year, the Marines listed Strank's birthplace as Pennsylvania. According to Scharfen, a Marine security guard at the American Embassy in the Slovak Republic was researching Strank's background and found no record that he was a U.S. citizen. So he filed an application for posthumous naturalization.
So who was Michael Strank? In "Flags of Our Fathers," James Bradley fills in details from interviews of Strank's family, friends, and fellow Marines.
He was born Michal Strenk on the Marine Corps birthday, Nov. 10, 1919, in Jarabenia, Czechoslovakia. His father, Vasil, emigrated to the United States in 1920 and changed his name to Strank. Vasil worked in the Pennsylvania mines for three years, and saved enough money to bring his wife and 3-year-old son to America.
In 1935, he became a naturalized American citizen, but son Mike never received a certificate. When Mike sailed for Iwo Jima, he was a 25-year-old sergeant and combat veteran of the Pavuvu and Bougainville island campaigns. He shunned the sergeants' mess and ate with his troops, who he called "his boys."
His company commander had recommended him for platoon sergeant, but he refused, saying, "I promised my boys I'd be there for them."
Indeed he had promised. Often he would tell his squad, "Follow me, and I'll try to bring all of you back safely to your mothers."
Joe Rodriguez, a member of one of the three fire teams Mike led as squad leader, said "Everybody idolized Mike. He was a born leader, a natural leader, and a leader by example."
After Bougainville, Mike was exhausted from combat and couldn't shake a case of malaria, so he was sent home on leave to recover. He also couldn't shake the feeling that he had used up his share of survivability. One evening when he was out to say goodbye to friends Mike and Eva Slazich, he told them, "I doubt if I'll ever see you again. I don't think I'll be coming back."
He let slip his premonition to his family, and his father pleaded with him to seek a stateside assignment. Mike replied, "Dad, there's a war going on out there. Young boys are fighting that war. And Dad . . . they need my help." So he went to Iwo Jima with his boys.
Bradley describes the aftermath of the flag-raising as follows: Mike and a group of Marines had come under Japanese sniper fire, and he pulled them into an outcropping that was protected from all sides except the sea. He was drawing a diagram in the sand of the tactics they would use to break out when a shell "tore a hole in his chest and ripped out his heart."
Many accounts describe it simply as an artillery shell, and some describe it as an "enemy" shell. Bradley, on the other hand, states: "Almost certainly,the round had come from a U.S. destroyer offshore; it sliced through the only unprotected side of the outcropping. The Czech immigrant to America, born on the Marine Corps birthday, serving his third tour of duty for his adopted country, the sergeant who was a friend to his boys, was cut down by friendly fire."
No matter the source of the shell, Sergeant Mike died as a combat leader. He was a Marine's Marine. Now he's an official American. Semper Fidelis.
Fred Edwards is a journalist and a military columnist. To see his bio and archived columns, visit http://www.milmat.net
Labels:
Iwo Jima,
Marine Corps,
Military,
Naturalization,
Strank
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Universal Health Insurance Triage: Americans Will Queu Behind Illegals
Former Clinton political strategist Dick Morris is urging John McCain to make an issue of Barack Obama's intention to cover illegal aliens free under his universal health insurance plan. However, McCain is unlikely to do so, as he is ardently pursuing the Hispanic voting bloc.
O'S HEALTH RX: COVER ILLEGALS
By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, New York Post
Democrats' single most important domestic proposal - universal health insurance - may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.
Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"
That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants - who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.
About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up - mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)
The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.
Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?
Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.
Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.
Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions - as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)
But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.
These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.
John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.
McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance - and hit it hard.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Invasion Protest at Denver Planned, Budgeted by Sovereignty Activists
The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) has announced plans for a "massive pro-American, pro-sovereignty, pro-border security, anti-illegal immigration rally" at the Democrat National Convention next month.
They hope to get their anti-illegal immigration message across to 15,000 reporters there, in addition to an estimated 20,000 others, including delegates, alternates and elected officials.
The Convention will be held August 25-28 in Denver, Colorado.
"This will be one of the biggest meetings of pro-amnesty, pro-illegal alien politicians in a long, long time," write the Minutemen, "all eager to push their agenda against American sovereignty in front of fifteen thousand reporters and their television cameras from across the country."
The sovereignty activists predict that the politicians will pander "to the open borders special interest groups, like La Raza and MALDEF, for a whole week."
The national Minuteman organization is "teaming up with local activists on the ground in Denver to stage this huge rally," it reported in a fundraising letter, "which will feature dozens of prominent speakers and leaders in the fight for border security. We've secured a location at a large park near the Pepsi Center where 35,000 people will be attending the convention.
"Our allies on the ground in Denver are putting the final details in place for a rally on the first day of the convention, plus more protests, pickets, counter-protests, media blitzes, and more the rest of the week."
The Minutemen have committed five thousand dollars to initial expenses, and expect the overall event to come in under $15,000, according to the fundraising letter.
"That's amazing, especially with having to cover application fees, the park fee, damage deposits to the city, off-duty police security, portable stages, power generators, property insurance, port-a-potties, waste bins, sound systems, and even shuttle buses that will travel between the park and a designated commuter lot to prevent traffic and parking problems."
They hope to get their anti-illegal immigration message across to 15,000 reporters there, in addition to an estimated 20,000 others, including delegates, alternates and elected officials.
The Convention will be held August 25-28 in Denver, Colorado.
"This will be one of the biggest meetings of pro-amnesty, pro-illegal alien politicians in a long, long time," write the Minutemen, "all eager to push their agenda against American sovereignty in front of fifteen thousand reporters and their television cameras from across the country."
The sovereignty activists predict that the politicians will pander "to the open borders special interest groups, like La Raza and MALDEF, for a whole week."
The national Minuteman organization is "teaming up with local activists on the ground in Denver to stage this huge rally," it reported in a fundraising letter, "which will feature dozens of prominent speakers and leaders in the fight for border security. We've secured a location at a large park near the Pepsi Center where 35,000 people will be attending the convention.
"Our allies on the ground in Denver are putting the final details in place for a rally on the first day of the convention, plus more protests, pickets, counter-protests, media blitzes, and more the rest of the week."
The Minutemen have committed five thousand dollars to initial expenses, and expect the overall event to come in under $15,000, according to the fundraising letter.
"That's amazing, especially with having to cover application fees, the park fee, damage deposits to the city, off-duty police security, portable stages, power generators, property insurance, port-a-potties, waste bins, sound systems, and even shuttle buses that will travel between the park and a designated commuter lot to prevent traffic and parking problems."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)