Dear Editor:
In response to Mr. Murray's letters, granting asylum to people in the US who have been persecuted based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group (gender is a social group under the law), or political opinion in the past or have a well founded fear of persecution based on one or more of these characteristics in the future. There is not even a need that the person be “abused” for them to be granted asylum here in the US. They do not even have to have been touched. Not a smack. Not a pinch. Not a harsh word or bad look. The granting of asylum is part of this country’s obligation to the world under international treaties that we have signed. It is one way our country shows the world that we are a leader in human rights. So, if a person is persecuted or reasonably fears being persecuted because of one or more of the previously mentioned grounds, it is our legal obligation to grant them asylum. That is the law and a violation of that law may in fact be unconstitutional. Asylum law is complex and our obligations are based on many international treaties as well as domestic law so it is not surprising that people who do not work on asylum cases do not understand this. However, I believe (I apologize if I am mistaken) that Mr. Murray's letters have previously advocated the removal of all undocumented people as they have violated the law, so I assume he must want the US to follow the law with regards to asylum.
Justin G. Randolph
Carpenter & Capt, Chtd., Chicago, IL
Copyright © 1999-2002 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
|
Add to del.icio.us