Daily Kos

The Case For A New Underground Railroad

Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM PDT

The current process of allowing people to seek asylum in the U.S. works poorly.  Superhuman efforts to reach the promised land in the U.S. end with no more than a crapshoot that does not distinguish between worthy claims and frivilous ones (and often can't).  This is no way to run a railroad.  

A better system would work more like the pre-Civil War underground railroad.  The judgment about whether someone was eligible for help would be made by a trusted person on the ground where the oppression was occurring, and would be trusted by everyone else on up the line.  The scouts at the beginning would pro-actively look for opportunities to spirit oppressed individuals who want to get out, which could be evaluated on the ground, rather than passively waiting to see what turned up on our shores like the flotsam and jetsom of the world.  Those in need of help would be actively sheparded to their destination in the U.S.  A helping hand and certainty, rather than prolonged preventantive detention and doubt, would great those helped when they arrived.

Some people can't get a fair shake.  Kenya still has places where women are burned as witches.  It is official policy in The Gambia to behead all gays.  A Nigerian state put a woman on death row for being raped.  Iraq is full of women targeted for honor killings.  China executes thousands of people a year on dubious grounds that are ill proven and would constitute middling felonies in any other country.  Often these people are not political dissidents but simply ordinary people who want nothing but to live an honest life.  Political dissidents often don't want to leave.  But many other oppressed people do.

Victimized people across the world must trek, usually illegally, to the U.S., then prove their cases in the face of absurd expectations of documentary proof, crabbed definitions of persecution, and almost whimisically different standards from judge to judge.  Judicial temperment matters so much, because the truth is usually half a world away in a place embroiled in chaos.  

The agency I propose would be an independent government agency, not a private conspiracy.  But it would serve a similar need.  We need as a nation to restore our credibility as positive agents of change and moral leaders.  We need to illustrate that we have not subordinated the needs to the individual to geopolitics.  The drama involved in rescuing people from private or governmental peril in their home countries would help us make progress towards this end.

We can't save everybody, without fundamentally reshaping the world, and even as the world's leading power, this is impossible.  But it is well within our means to rescue tens of thousands of people a year who face challenges above and beyond the norm from horrible local situations, and to offer them better lives.

These individuals might also form a repository of information about their native lands unmatched by our current collection of CIA analysts.

Such an organization might need a few thousand employees, some as agents abroad, some to handle transporation, some to resettle people who arrive here, some to handle the inevitable business of running a government agency.  It might need a few small planes, some boats or ships, and rights to cooperation from other government officials, such as the U.S. Navy, U.S. embassy staff, and the U.S. Air Force.  But, it wouldn't be very expensive -- probably less than a tenth of the budget of the U.S. Coast Guard, for example (i.e. about $875 million a year).

It could start as a trial program, a tenth that size, with a few hundred employees, $88 million a year in operating expenses, and a goal of rescuing thousands instead of tens of thousands of people a year.

For that matter, the private sector could, like the real underground railroad, probably run the entire program with contributions from non-profits, if it could have scouts deputized to grant asylum on an informal basis without the usual paperwork review, the right to cooperation from U.S. authorities and immunity from U.S. prosecution for their acts in furtherance of the program but in violation of foreign laws.

Poll

Does this idea make sense?

16%4 votes
20%5 votes
25%6 votes
0%0 votes
4%1 votes
8%2 votes
0%0 votes
8%2 votes
4%1 votes
0%0 votes
12%3 votes

| 24 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: immigration, asylum, human rights, sovereignty (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 58 comments

  •  Tips, feedback, proof that witches are real? (7+ / 0-)

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

    by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:21:58 PM PDT

  •  we already have an underground railroad (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, Pete Rock, Owllwoman

    it's called the Mexican border. If anybody wants to come, they can come. What, we have to go scouting for them now?

    Do not rejoice in Hitler's defeat, for though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again. Bertolt Brecht

    by Marcion on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM PDT

    •  Ironic-seeing as how illegal and legal immigrants (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mango

      are not processed and deported as needed like in the old days of rule of law, but detained randomly and indefinitely, including their children.

      It's also ironic this diary doesn't mention that as an underground railroad option for these victims.

      It's also ironic that the moment these refugees from overseas are helped here by this proposed underground railroad, they'd be susceptible to ICE raids to be placed in indefinite US detention camps, which this underground railroad doesn't address.

      The proposal part doesn't make sense to have a government agency interfering in other countries or a private company soliciting non profits already strapped for cash.

      Returning to the rule of law, and advocating for it makes more sense.

      Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:22:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rule of law is the problem (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        theboz

        As long as the law and not humanity rules, some people will be legal and others illegal. Instead of creating new government bureaucracies to subdivide humans further into categories and conduct infterviews to determine who is good at kissing the ass of the intake interviewer and saying the right things, we should start blowing up the agencies we already have to let people live freely anywhere they want without labels and permit slips.

        Do not rejoice in Hitler's defeat, for though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again. Bertolt Brecht

        by Marcion on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Three points. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        doinaheckuvanutjob
        1.  The solution to the unjust policies of U.S. immigration is to make U.S. policies less unjust.
        1.  The most crucial piece of my own proposal is that its beneficiaries receive unreviewable asylum status, immediately upon being identified in their own countries as eligible.  Beneficiaries of this program would therefore be legal immigrants.
        1.  This program is designed with the intent that it violate foreign sovereignty and foreign laws, although not U.S. law and not international human rights standards.  It does so by taking the position that the rule of law must give way to higher concerns when a foreign country's laws lead to violations of human rights.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

        by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:05:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Another problem for another day. (0+ / 0-)

      There is lots of immigration from Mexico in violation of U.S. immigration laws, predominantly by people who want a better life economically, who are not personal victims of the kind of oppression that would justify help under my proposal or existing asylum law (even if better implemented).

      Wanting a better life economically does not make people bad people.  But, that requires reforms of the ordinary immigration system and the world economy.  Most of those people are people who can help themselves if permitted to do so.

      I proposed to seek out people who are vulnerable and powerless, because they deserve someone's help as human beings, and few people other than us are in a position to provide the help that they need.

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

      by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:01:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually, I like the private conspiracy idea nt (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ohwilleke, sanglug

    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

    by Geenius at Wrok on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:37:31 PM PDT

  •  You've left out the other half. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ohwilleke, burrow owl

    This is an interesting idea, but it's missing any attention to the obvious counter-proposal: pro-actively working to increase freedom and tolerance in other parts of the world.

    I voted for the "trial program" option in your poll, but I think that to be really successful we would also need to redouble (or perhaps re-octuple or something) our national efforts to fix what ails struggling nations.

    This does not, let me be clear, include invading them.  I'm thinking more along the lines of diplomatic pressure and a vastly re-envigorated Peace Corps program.  Work to fix the legal/governmental causes of oppression and dissent in foreign lands, while simultaneously working at the grassroots level to improve people's infrastructure and quality of life.

    I say this because while I don't like seeing stories of tragedies from abroad any more than you do, neither do I believe that the answer is for America to shoulder the entire burden of giving oppressed people better lives.

    Somewhere out there, I have to believe there's a "have your cake and eat it too" solution.  Something where for now we let those people come here easily so they can build better lives for themselves, but where we also do the work necessary to enable those people to return home safely, to a better place than they left, bringing with them the skills, experience, and capital they can acquire here.  A win-win-win for everybody.

    •  some good points (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ohwilleke

      While I like the idea of the diary, there are a couple things I'm uncertain about. One is the idea of agents abroad. While clarifying and making more fair the procedure here at home is certainly laudable and doable (we need to make it much fairer), having people stationed in other countries doing this is more akin to covert intelligence work than pure humanitarian work (do we lean towards only taking people with useful intelligence? That's a possible problem.) It is also likely to piss off a lot of other governments, thus putting our people in real danger in some places.

      It also seems to tap a little bit into the same assumptions currently lying behind our military presence in the rest of the world: i.e. we are doing good (by our own standards) and therefore have a right to be in other people's countries regardless of what they think. I'm not saying that rescuing people in danger of persecution is not good by itself, just that the assumptions behind this manifestation of help are slightly flawed. It's Team America World Police.

      This is really the one point where it comes out most for me:

      ...immunity from U.S. prosecution for their acts in furtherance of the program but in violation of foreign laws.

      I'm sorry, but no matter what the goal of the action is, I can't advocate that anyone, American or not, should automatically be granted pre-emptive immunity from international law. If it's not something we can do in accordance with international law, we should question whether we ought to be doing it at all. And regarding the laws of particular nations: while people in danger have every right to flee oppressive treatment, including oppressive laws, our going into another country with the intention of violating their laws amounts to a denial of that nation's sovereignty (i.e. what America thinks goes.) This is a question about America's right to actively impose its ideas on other nations, let me be clear, not at all a defense of oppressive laws. This is simply (IMHO) not the way to go about fighting the existence of those laws.

      That said, we certainly should reform the process here at home ASAP.

      Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

      by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:32:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To be clear. (0+ / 0-)

        What I envision is more like covert agents of the CIA than the Peace Corps or diplomatic intervention.  But instead of assassinating people destablizing governments, or having a purpose of gathering information, they would offer people a chance to defect simply because they were getting a raw deal that posed a threat to them which there was no alternative way to extricate them from.

        Yes, I absolutely do contemplate violations of foreign sovereignty and of many foreign laws (e.g. trespassing, requirements to clear flights with local air traffic control, requirements to check in boats taking or dropping off passengers with customs and immigration, requirements that foreign agents register with the government in the country where they are operating, requirements to obtain exit visas, requirements not to conspire to help people violate terms of house arrest, probation and parole, requirements not to harbor a fugitive from local justice, violations of internal immigration and documentation requirements, requirements that foreign official documents not be forged, etc.).

        This would piss off those countries.  But the hope is that they would be loathe to complain because they would be hurt in the court of public opinion by doing so, because the U.S. facilitated rescue would seem justified in the court of world public opinion (and maybe even in that country's own domestic court of public opinion).

        Part of the point of this program is to create a way to piss off countries that a behaving badly that is intermediate between going to war, and ineffectual diplomatic protests and embargos.  At a geopolitical level this operates as a sort of intermediate sanction that really helps the people whose treatment makes international action of some level necessary, while minimizing harm to innocent bystandards like foreign businesses that are engaging constructively with people in the country.

        Likewise, it takes the position that some kinds of human rights are universal and give the U.S. moral authority to act in violation of sovereignty.  This proposition of international law is well established in the face of impending genocide, but the extent to which it applies to unjust treatment of individuals is far less well established under international law.  I believe that a successful trial of this kind of program would help establish an exception to sovereignty not only for mass human rights violations, but also for individual human rights violations.  My poll questions indicate that I recognize that some would view this as imperalistic arrogance.  I say that the harm may justify arrogance in support of human rights now and then.

        But, unlike the current Bush Administration, it is not my intent to provide immunity from U.S. law (e.g. prohibitions on killing people unless justified for self-defense or defense of others, prohibitions of torture, prohibitions on abducting people without their consent, prohibitions on rape, etc.) or international human rights law -- just the domestic laws of foreign countries.  In other words, I would push for something akin to the pre-Military Commissions Act, pre-Bush Administration, legal immunities that apply to U.S. military personnel and diplomats abroad for purposes of domestic U.S. law.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

        by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:54:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  hrm (0+ / 0-)

          Well, I think we have to agree to disagree on the notion of the US having some sort of super authority to intervene in world affairs. At the moment I really don't see how we can claim moral authority at all, much less the right to impose our vision of it on the rest of the world. Nor can I personally accept the idea that the US has the right to violate sovereignty; that is Manifest Destiny right there. I wouldn't argue that for any country, BTW. But that's my own view.

          Also, if you want this to become something akin to the Convention on genocide why not give the world a chance to participate fairly in the creation of standards, etc.? Why is it any fairer or more moral for one nation (with a stained record of its own) to dictate the terms than for the international community to collectively work them out? That would go some distance towards alleviating the problem of sovereignty.

          And why the US, may I ask? You put a lot of faith in a country that has so far shown itself to be more of a bully than a real, honest 'policeman' IMHO. Speaking as a US citizen who wonders for her friends' safety here at home, I'd prefer a country with a slightly better record if we're going to give this kind of power to any single nation. Maybe Iceland; they haven't started many wars last time I looked and actually take care of their own citizens.

          One final point: the US cannot (I mean cannot in the sense of legally or practically being ABLE to do so, regardless of whether it SHOULD) dictate to other countries who gets immunity under those countries' own laws. Diplomatic immunity is an agreement, and holds up because it is mutual: i.e. my people don't get arrested, and neither do yours. It isn't imposed upon countries without their permission - how could it be? The US can only grant immunity from its OWN laws, and if this is something the US is doing why would its agents be in danger of violating US law? Surely if the program is an official US program, openly acknowledged, then it wouldn't be illegal here to carry out functions of that program. And if it is secret and illegal in all or part, how does it act as a precedent for any sort of international agreement?

          Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

          by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The value of immunity (0+ / 0-)

            from foreign laws, is that the aggrevied foreign government or people interested in its actions couldn't bring civil suit in U.S. courts against the U.S. agents, nor could they demand extradition (or the agent or the rescued person) pursuant to an extradition treaty with the U.S. that applies to common criminals.

            In short, the issues involved would be similar to those involved in the pre-Civil War debate over the Fugitive Slaves Act.

            "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

            by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:32:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My point (0+ / 0-)

              about immunity, as I stated in the parentheses, is not a question why or why not (i.e. the "value of it" as you put it) but a question of whether or not it CAN be done. The US, I repeat, CANNOT force immunity under any laws but its own - even if it was agreed that it would be a good idea, currently it CANNOT. The laws of the other countries are, by definition, not US law (though there may be points of agreement, the laws themselves are separate entities); therefore US courts, legislators, lawyers, judges, and other justice dept. personnel HAVE NO LEGAL JURISDICTION. They simply have no way to force immunity from laws not in their jurisdiction. It's a matter of practicality, not value judgments, that I was pointing out. (I think my position in that respect would already be clear.)

              Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

              by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:39:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The question is remedies. (0+ / 0-)

                What can a foreign government do to someone who violates its laws?

                They can try to arrest that person and impose criminal process.

                They can seek their extradition.

                They can impose a fine or civil judgment and impose it on assets they can secure control over.

                Usually, when a foreign government complains that someone in the U.S. has failed to pay a foreign judgment or is a fugitive from criminal justice abroad, we allow that foreign government to convert a foreign judgment into a domestic judgment, or extradite that person in the U.S. to the foreign country for criminal proceedings there.  We do that not out of domestic or international legal obligation but out of comity.

                If the U.S. fails to cooperate, it is much, much harder for a foreign government to enforce its will on an individual.  It has to have the wherewithal to successfully kidnap or harm that person in the U.S. or find assets in that person's name in a place that honor's the foreign country's judgments.

                No, we can't give someone immunity from foreign laws in the eyes of the foreign government, but we can deny the foreign government the tools that make its laws effective.

                "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:48:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and therefore (0+ / 0-)

                  deny fundamental aspects of sovereignty that help foreign affairs go smoothly. Believe me the US would get HUGE blowback from many sides for refusing to deal fairly with other countries in such matters...i.e. respecting their sovereignty. This can then affect how US citizens are treated abroad. This is the US wanting to hold the rest of the world accountable, but refusing to be held accountable for anything itself. This is ALREADY a major problem for the US and it only going to get worse as our influence declines thanks to BushCo's adventures in the Middle East.

                  Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                  by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:55:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sovereignty has rarely been as absolute as it is (0+ / 0-)

                    today, in the larger scope of history.

                    In my view, it has gone too far.

                    We used to allow the patriach's of families to be sovereign over their households.  It was too hard to worry about anything other than inter-household strife.  There were civil and criminal immunities with respect to intrahousehold torts and crimes.

                    Now we acknowledge domestic violence and child abuse as public concerns in which the general public has an interest.

                    What I am proposing is a similar rethink of sovereignty in the community of nations.  While most of the time we should respect nation's right to arrange their affairs, it is right and proper for the world community to intervene to prevent nations from abusing or neglecting their own citizens.

                    What I am proposing is the moral equivalent of child protective services for abusive or neglectful families.

                    The world has gotten smaller, and as this has happened nation's lives have grown intertwined.  Ignoring what happens in another country on the grounds that it won't impact your own country is increasingly infeasible.

                    Why did Chad send a motorized armed force on a raid to a suburb of the Sudanese capital this month?  Because Sudan's treatment of the Darfur situation has filled it with refugees.

                    Civil war in Nigeria would impact oil prices in Ohio.

                    Industrial practices in China impact air quality and product safety in California.

                    The quality of the economy in Mexico impacts the number of people who immigrate to the U.S.

                    The kind of government that prevails in Afghanistan impacts the heroin trade in Switzerland.

                    We are too intertwined to look the other way anymore, and that applies to human rights just as it does to other sectors of global life.

                    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                    by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:26:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you (0+ / 0-)

                      don't seem to grasp the point that whatever your view of how the world should be (there is room for discussion here, I am not defending the current order 100% or anything, just pointing out the FACTS about it), I repeat, whatever you view of how it should be, it CURRENTLY does not work that way. Violating sovereignty has real CONSEQUENCES right now.

                      Sure it would be nice to get together a world conversation about how it really should work; I highly doubt that is going to happen anytime in the near future. I also doubt that a huge portion of the world shares your views; things might turn out differently even if we did have some sort of world convention on sovereignty.

                      Also, you talk about a world community here, but you haven't considered the fact that the program you currently propose takes little real account of what the world community thinks. If it did, you wouldn't be advocating for the US to take this kind of unilateral action, you would be arguing for some sort of world discussion about the issue and multilateral attempts to resolve it. Your talk of world community rings hollow.

                      Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                      by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:33:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  also (0+ / 0-)

                  what if a US citizen engaged in work for this 'underground railroad' violated the human rights of a citizen of the other country in the course of carrying out his/her duties? Would that person whose human rights had been violated have any legal redress that the US would honor?

                  Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                  by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:04:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

                    Such a person could bring suit under the Alien Tort Claims Act, and likewise, could deliver a complaint to the Investigator General for that agency who would investigate and could initiate prosecution or discipline of the person violating human rights.

                    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                    by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:16:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  but only (0+ / 0-)

                      if the US agrees to honor the claim. Since the US Federal Court has jurisdiction, the US has to agree to prosecute the case. Which means that it is still in the US's hands to determine who gets legal redress for the actions of US citizens and who does not. And considering that any acknowledgment of human rights violations by the very people supposed to be championing the upholding of those rights - and actually in the course of doing this, no less - would be EXTREMELY embarrassing to the US, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that many such claims at all would really be prosecuted.

                      Perhaps I should have emphasized in my question the phrase "that the US would honor."

                      Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                      by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:26:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It is hard to get prosecutions of government (0+ / 0-)

                        officials, but it does happen.  The U.S. military has court martialed and disciplined soldiers for some of the worst abuses exposed in Iraq.  Some bad cops are prosecuted.

                        But civil suits are far harder to stop.  If an enabling statute specifically allows lawsuits for a particular kind of violation of human rights by U.S. agents, it is hard to stop these.

                        For every bad cop that is prosecuted, many give rise to civil suits which are often settled for substantial sums and produce policy changes by the subjects of the suits.  I would expect a similar result with the proper enabling legislation.

                        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                        by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:30:43 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Also FWIW (0+ / 0-)

                          one of my first jobs was to defend allegedly bad cops and other government officials accused of wrong doing in civil suits.  It isn't easy to win those cases.  An alleged victim has to hit a pretty narrow target.  But it can be done.

                          "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                          by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:32:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  once again (0+ / 0-)

                          you miss my point. You assume that the real powers in the US would not interfere in the bringing of potentially embarrassing suits against its own citizens...yet given the US's record so far I think it rather likely such attempts would be made, by people with the power to really derail them - legally or not. You place far too much faith in the US government acting truly fairly in these matters, considering its history and the potential fallout from these kinds of cases.

                          Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                          by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:37:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  There is nobody behind the curtain. (0+ / 0-)

                            And the kind of people inclined to use devious means to protect CIA agents and the like are probably more than willing to throw an underground railroader under the bus in order to discredit the program.

                            The main reason that more suits against U.S. individuals haven't gone forward is because Congress has given them immunity from U.S. law under the Military Commissions Act.

                            "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                            by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:10:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  ?? (0+ / 0-)

                              Now you are making no sense.

                              First, by those with real power I was not implying people "behind the curtain" secretly pulling strings, I meant quite simply the people in power. You know, in the government. The ones running the program and deciding US foreign policy. The people in the actual government. I would have thought the reference was fairly clear.

                              Second, this:

                              And the kind of people inclined to use devious means to protect CIA agents and the like are probably more than willing to throw an underground railroader under the bus in order to discredit the program.

                              makes no sense as  support for your argument. You say they would try to DISCREDIT the program. Why would the people who want to protect the CIA and so on attempt to discredit a CIA-like program? These are generally the people favoring covert intervention abroad (they want to protect the CIA, etc.). So why try to discredit such a program?

                              Also, the MCA has less relevance here than you seem to think. It has only been around for a few years, whereas CIA covert actions of the type to get people in trouble have been going on for decades. It's been rather consistently difficult to hold US people responsible in such cases; the MCA just threw up a more 'legal' roadblock. Another excuse not to hold people responsible - not some gigantic new obstacle to what before had been a really straightforward and fair process. Again, you have a lot of faith in the people in power not mucking about in all of this at all. And I just don't think that faith is well-placed considering US history.

                              Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                              by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:21:46 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  The Executive Branch has very little ability (0+ / 0-)

                                to influence civil lawsuits brought by private individuals in a federal court under a federal statute.  This is why the most effective redress for government abuses often lies in the federal courts.  While I don't always agree with the federal courts, they aren't corrupt.  The Executive branch can control criminal prosecutions, but not civil lawsuits.

                                The reason that people who like the CIA would not defend this program is that people who like the CIA mostly believe that individual ordinary people don't matter and don't enhance our national security.  They have a very narrow conception of our national interest.

                                They have contempt for groups like Amnesty International that bring attention to the suffering of individuals.  They feel that, by and large, it is legitimate for sovereign nations and private groups abroad to abuse their own citizens, as long as the U.S. isn't impacted.  They think that the lives of non-U.S. citzens have no intrinsic value.

                                The people who love the CIA don't even trust the Peace Corps and the State Department, and my independent agency conception would avoid an institutional identification with them.

                                By analogy, conservatives fiercely protect police from allegations of intentional wrongdoing, but rarely feel the same about firefighters.

                                I suspect that the same dynamic would play out in this case.  The folks with the conservative Cold Warrior attitude would fiercely protect Special Operations Soldiers and CIA covert ops guys, while being rather indifferent to abuses by Coast Guard or Underground Railroad types.

                                "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                                by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:34:37 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  arg (0+ / 0-)

                                  Yet again:

                                  The Executive Branch has very little ability to influence civil lawsuits brought by private individuals in a federal court under a federal statute.

                                  Very little LEGAL ability. But consider the current state of US law; it's pretty much a joke, and unless the next president takes immediate, serious action to undo everything this administration has done (something I personally doubt for a variety of reasons), there is a lot of precedent set for interference. Also, going by the last few decades of US politics, our politicians tend not to have many qualms about mucking things up under the table in order to avoid embarrassment, possible legal action, etc. You know, taking action that would NOT be completely in accordance with the relevant US law governing these things. Your faith in politicians astounds me.

                                  Nor am I talking only about the EB. I mean people in all branches of the gov't. And while the Federal Court might not completely corrupt, I doubt that every single person there is a real saint who would never dream of throwing a monkey wrench or two into the works if it were made very advantageous for them to do so. All it takes is one person with a bit of money and things can get lost, be dropped, be mucked with in various ways. Believe me there are people in all branches of the gov't who would not be above this if they got a suitable reward.

                                  You clarified your statement about discrediting the program, but honestly I don't see that it does you a huge amount of help.

                                  Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                                  by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  You clearly trust the courts to do their jobs far (0+ / 0-)

                                    less than I do.  I'm not entirely sure why that is the case.

                                    The courts are human institutions, and they aren't perfect, but I have a high degree of faith in their ability to cut through extra-legal interference.

                                    I think that you have overstated the long term impact of this administration's efforts to take extra-legal action, something it has been less than successful at doing.

                                    I suspect that when Obama takes the oath of office that there will be a great deal of payback.  The rear guard efforts that the administration is making to maintain disregard for the law, for the courts, and for Congress are becoming a rout already.

                                    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                                    by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:59:30 PM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                                    •  Iim (0+ / 0-)

                                      not talking only about the courts! And I'm not talking just about what BushCo has done - that is merely the most blatant it has been. This kind of stuff has been going on for decades - particularly with the CIA but not only there. I'm talking about what happens before a lot of stuff even GETS to the courts, and only THEN about the fact that it is not guaranteed to run fairly even there.

                                      You are quite right, I have much less faith in my government than you seem to, but that is because I tend to read about the history of the US and to remember it when considering issues like these. I think Obama is great as far as he goes, but I highly doubt that he is going to institute really massive, deep-level change of the kind we need. Some, yes, but not nearly enough. He is no threat to the entire system as it stands - otherwise he would not have gotten this far, IMHO. Edwards was a bit better, but he was shut out pretty quickly. See, I think that a big part of the problem is exactly the attitude that America is special and should play world police - this attitude is highly bound up with the notion of controlling things in the name of our "national interests," which quite often are not aligned with the interests of people elsewhere in the world attempting to assert their human rights. I highly doubt that any sort of further program for covert operations abroad is going to get off the ground unless our "national interests" are at the very least not threatened by it. Which they would be if a lot of these repressive governments were actually overthrown.

                                      Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                                      by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:20:19 PM PDT

                                      [ Parent ]

                                      •  The change needed doesn't need to be deep. (0+ / 0-)

                                        Rank and file bureaucrats have a instinctive belief in rule of law.  The corruption we've seen under Bush is taking place at a thin politically appointee and immediate subordinate level.  Even then, there have been numerous instances of revolt, like the current judge of the military tribunal.

                                        There can be some cover up that makes it hard to file an action, but discovery is a wonderful thing.  It is possible to get to the bottom of cases.  Rank and file fraud and coverup is fairly rare.

                                        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                                        by ohwilleke on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:53:19 AM PDT

                                        [ Parent ]

        •  also (0+ / 0-)

          But the hope is that they would be loathe to complain because they would be hurt in the court of public opinion by doing so, because the U.S. facilitated rescue would seem justified in the court of world public opinion (and maybe even in that country's own domestic court of public opinion).

          This is not as easy as you think - a lot of countries are going to band together against the idea of the US having this right to break their laws...the court of world opinion isn't so helpful to your plan there. Also a lot of the gov'ts doing the things this would be against aren't ashamed of their actions really; there are a lot of people  in the world who for instance think it is right to kill gay people. Not much help there.

          Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

          by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:16:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps. (0+ / 0-)

            But, I'm not so concerned with what governments think.  I'm more concerned with what their people think.  

            One of the factors that inhibits revolution is a belief that the authority in power is infallible and that resistance is futile.  Undermining that perception could have a powerful effect, by validating the suffering of those rescued, by humanizing those rescued, and by creating a glimmer of hope even if that hope was often disappointed.

            Kurdistan revolved against Iraq after the first Gulf War in large part because it would receive backing from the elder President Bush which he never delivered.  But, by the time the U.S. came back, Kurdistan, by its own wits, achieved de facto independence anyway.  They got very little other than hope from us either time, but that made all the difference to them.

            "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

            by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:37:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you must assume (0+ / 0-)

              therefore that none of these governments have any support whatsoever from any portion of their populations...i.e. that all Muslims except those actually in power in Iran really think being gay is not at all a problem, and it is purely the government's view that they should die. So where did these leaders get the idea that gay people should die? If the population doesn't think this in the least, where do those strains of thought come from that argue that homosexuality ought to be punished with death? They have to come from somewhere...like culture. Like, forms of thought and belief handed down through ordinary people....You assume, that is, that because a government is repressive towards some of its citizens that it must be universally hated by all of them. Which is simply not true; look at history, at current world politics, at the US itself even.

              Also, the governments whose views who care nothing for are not entirely helpless against the US. Piss enough of them off and it might have serious consequences for this country.

              I've got nothing against giving hope to people. But you have to be realistic about the real facts on the ground if you want to actually accomplish anything positive. Going in with idealistic plans that don't take sufficient account of the reality of situations tends to create major problems with accomplishing good things, and can sometimes result in really really negative things happening. You have to take reality into account when deciding how to act or it can bite you REALLY hard RIGHT in the ass.

              Look at Bin Laden if you want to know what I mean. CIA-trained, because they thought it would be a good thing to use the mujahideen to kick the Soviets out. Well, it worked in the short-term, but long-term...man did it blow up in our faces. THIS is the problem with arrogance; it assumes that things cannot go other than it sees them going, and has no conception of the fact that there might be blind spots in its views of things.

              Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

              by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:52:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Most of the worst governments aren't democratic (0+ / 0-)

                at least not very.

                No taxation with representation can cut two ways.  In the Middle East, there is no representation and no taxation either, and many tin pot dicatorships have negligible democracy accompanied by taxes imposed only on a very thin Westernized sector of the economy.  The people may not actively oppose their governments, but they don't necessarily enthusiastically support them either.  And, subcultures wihtin those countries might be encouraged and empowered.

                Also, there are many practices, like honor killing, which are accepted, but which countries are necessarily proud of either, particularly at the level of diplomatic corps for that country.

                You are certainly right that some people are in favor of human rights violations.  This proposal is, by, design, neither democratic nor culturally sensitive.  It calls out governments and sometimes the cultures that create the attitudes of those who run those governments, as barbaric.

                But allowing willing people who are not welcome or wanted where they are to escape a place wouldn't necessary generate the same kind of backlash as supporting an armed struggle or undermining governments directly.  Many cultures consider exile as second only to execution in severity.  

                Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if there were countries that would willingly enter into agreements whereby they would agree to punish certain offenses with exile to the U.S. rather than some other punishment willingly.  The Gambia, for example, might very well be satisfied to refrain from executing suspected gays and lesbians if we took them off their hands.

                "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:14:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  first (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not talking about not allowing people who need shelter to have it - I pointed out already that we need to make the system here much fairer. My only issue is with the aspect of actively going into other countries to do covert work, break their laws, and then hold ourselves completely free from real responsibility for the consequences of that.

                  And yes, many governments are not democratic and do have opposition subcultures, etc. My point is that in order for these governments to actually be held responsible the power of those elements opposed to them needs to be of a sufficient strength. If it isn't, working with some of those groups could bring about HEAVIER repression and thus dissuade some of them from working with us. And there is usually some segment of the population - that which holds all the little levers of power and which is trusted by the gov't to carry out its orders, etc. - DOES agree with the gov't. They are, usually almost by definition, the ones holding power at various levels throughout the country. This is not insignificant when considering revolution, etc. Hope is good, but it is not enough. And its lack is certainly not the only thing holding would-be revolutionaries from taking power.

                  Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                  by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:51:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  also (0+ / 0-)

                  in statements like this

                  The Gambia, for example, might very well be satisfied to refrain from executing suspected gays and lesbians if we took them off their hands.

                  you assume the foreign governments concerned would behave rationally, would see the rationality of simply letting their citizens go off somewhere else. You don't take into account the fact that, for example, if the people in charge think it is their DUTY to kill gay people, then they are less likely to hand them off to someone who wants to keep them alive. History teaches us that people will fight to the death to defend their perceived right and/or duty to kill other people.

                  Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                  by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:58:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  otherwise (0+ / 0-)

                    and this is not a Godwin but a real historical reference, why didn't the Nazis simply let all the Jews leave Germany? They actively killed people trying to help them leave.

                    Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                    by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:07:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No every problem calls for a hammer. (0+ / 0-)

                      Some issues are best resolved diplomatically.

                      Some issues are best resolved with international war.

                      Some issues are well suited to resolution with economic or cultural sanctions, or with foreign aid.

                      Some issues are best ignored because there is nothing we can do about them.

                      While not everyone would agree with me, I think that there are probably some issues where assassination or support for a military opposition to an existing government (a la Afghanistan) is a sensible alternative, if the only other viable options are international war or an embargo that would cause widespread suffering for innocent people.

                      My argument is not that one can solve every problem with this tool.  My little Underground Railroad tool is completely inadequate to stop a full fledged genocide.  It might work for thousands or tens of thousands of individuals per year, similar in order of magnitude, to the entire number of amnesty cases the U.S. accepts in a year.

                      This particular tool is aimed at cruel and unusual, individualized, not necessarily terribly political suffering that is localized and which the victim cannot escape.

                      It has the virtue of being less aggressive than international war, less aggresive than support for a violent opposition, less aggressive than assassination.

                      It is more targeted than an economic embargo or an asset freeze.

                      It is more effective than a public condemnation or a persona non grata designation of a diplomatic official.

                      It may be the only tool available short of the most aggressive ones, in countries like Cuba, where we have no official trade or foreign relations.

                      My argument is that this tool has a place on the spectrum of international action that we can take, and that it would provide an intermediate option that would often be useful.

                      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                      by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:24:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  your defense (0+ / 0-)

                        of your program is very nice, and there are a couple of points there that I would consider well-founded. However, yet again what you post has nothing to do with the actual point it is apparently a reply to, which is this:

                        you think that the repressive governments in question are going to simply act in accordance with what we would perceive as rationality - i.e. simply giving us the people they would otherwise kill, etc. You take no account of the governments' views of the matter (that they might not be so happy to simply give us their citizens), nor the fact that people do not always act in ways we call rational. Do you think that some government controlled by people who honestly believed it to be their holy duty to kill gay people would really just let all of those people leave and go live (key word: live) somewhere else simply because the US offered to take them?

                        Also, let me point out that you take no account of the possibility that the US government and/or segments of the US population might not want to take in a lot of refugees. Especially ones who are likely to be poor, nonwhite, and/or Muslim, etc. and who would need jobs, etc.

                        Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                        by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:35:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Some governments wouldn't cooperate. (0+ / 0-)

                          The Underground Railroad agency is for the irrational nations, which is why it has to break the law.  The agency's reason to exist is that some nations have irrationally cruel circumstances.

                          Cooperation is for the more rational nations and would be handled through the State Department.  It is yet another underused policy option.  Some regimes are ideological, but a lot of marginally or non-democratic leaders are pragmatists who want power for power's sake who would be happy to have trouble taken off their hands.

                          Incidentally, one recent example of the U.S. particpating in such a deal was a U.S. arrangement to exile Guantanamo Bay detainees who we agreed weren't enemy combatants but were Chinese Muslims facing persecution upon their return, to Albania.  Another was in Haiti where we basically forced Aristide into exile.

                          Cuba's export of undesirables to the U.S. is another example (and I think we have the wrong policy is sending back Cuban refugees).

                          Exile has an august history.

                          You are also of course right the some people don't want the U.S. to take refugees.  This is why I suggest a fairly modest program aimed at individuals in relatively ideosyncratic situations, rather than whole peoples.  But some people would still be unhappy.  I disagree with those people.  I think that a majority of Americans could be convinced to disagree with those people.  I think involvement of churches and the like could be used to win over the public (consider the case of the Sudanese Lost Boys which is quite popular).  I think that the confidence that the public would receive as a result of having on the spot more accurate judgments about eligibility for asylum, rather than U.S. court room judgments based on statements from people who often had to lie to make it this far would increase the program's credibility relative to existing asylum programs.

                          I suspect that the beneficiaries would be disproportionately GLBT or women or would be non-Muslims from Muslim countries, that many would not be very politically inclined, and that those groups would seem less threatening to the general public than many other types of asylum seekers.

                          "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                          by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:52:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                            I think that the confidence that the public would receive as a result of having on the spot more accurate judgments about eligibility for asylum...I suspect that the beneficiaries would be disproportionately GLBT or women or would be non-Muslims from Muslim countries, that many would not be very politically inclined, and that those groups would seem less threatening to the general public than many other types of asylum seekers.

                            You assume that the judgments made on the spot are naturally going to be more accurate all the time? True it can be difficult to judge in a courtroom, but it can also be difficult to judge something clearly in the middle of the situation itself, when you haven't necessarily had the time yet to find all the relevant pieces of the puzzle. And (especially if the program will be as limited in scope as you suggest) the mere fact of persecution wouldn't be enough to make one eligible, so other pieces of information, etc. would be needed. This also assumes access to all the relevant information - something rather difficult in repressive regimes.

                            Also, I suspect that the range of people in need might be broader than you think, but that is of little import currently. Do you really think that proving how much some people need protection from their gov't's is automatically going to turn people wholly to their favor? I doubt it. There would be a show of it from some quarters, yes, but there are still a lot of people in this country who, for instance, hate gays. They aren't going to have their minds changed by this, and I daresay you underestimate what people can find threatening. Also , are we going to ignore all of the politically-inclined would-be refugees? Since you think the ones coming over will not be very political. This isn't going to help us function in those countries, you know, where the politically-inclined ones are the ones working for human rights. Regarding Muslims/non-Muslims: what about all of the Shiites persecuted in Sunni countries and vice-versa? What about the Baha'i of Iran? I doubt your average midwesterner is going to automatically think them less 'threatening' than Muslims, or even necessarily know the real difference; they are going to be seen as non-Christian foreigners taking American jobs and resources.

                            Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                            by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:08:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  In countries where asylum is a hot issue (0+ / 0-)

                              (and the U.S. is not anywhere near the top of that list) concerns about the accuracy of the judgments made on the authenticity of claims of persecution is very hot, despite the fact that most of those nations have a far more well fun immigration judge system than the U.S.

                              The rallying cry of anti-immigrant forces across Europe is that asylum seekers are really just seeking a better economic life.

                              Yes, I do believe that having a U.S. government agent on the spot making a determination would have
                              a huge impact of the crediblity of the process.

                              Immigration asylum hearings are very surreal events.  The government and claimants routinely question each other on all sorts of matters that shouldn't be subject to reasonable question by someone on the ground.  Immigration judges hear cases from a dozen countries in one day.

                              Some examples where this hasn't come up: Israel's retrievals of foreign Jews, post-Vietnam War admission of U.S. supporters and Amer-Asians, and the U.S. acceptance of people identified by U.S. forces in Iraq as being eligible for asylum in the U.S. due to cooperation with U.S. forces.

                              The fact that we would be actively seeking people out, rather than seeing who shows up, dramatically impacts the credibility of those people.

                              As far as the mix of people go, sure there would be all kinds, but an Underground Railroad model would disproportionately impact the weak, who are less threatening, while a system that requires you to make your own way somehow to the U.S. border favors the strong and devious who are more threatening.

                              "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                              by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:19:31 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  my point (0+ / 0-)

                                relates not so much to the CREDIBILITY of the people involved, but mainly to the issue of GETTING all of the relevant information needed to determine eligibility. If you are proposing a limited number of people getting asylum, then you are going to need far more than the mere fact of persecution (no matter how CREDIBLE the claim) in order to be eligible. My point was that on the spot judgments may not often HAVE ACCESS to all of this needed information. This applies EVEN if the claim of persecution is CREDIBLE. Otherwise every single person with a credible story is going to be eligible and the program will not be limited in scope as you describe it as being.

                                Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                                by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:26:38 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  I would imagine something like each agent having (0+ / 0-)

                                  a quota and being told "find the twenty most worthy people you can".  Standards would materialize on the ground.

                                  Accuracy in an "eye of God" truth kind of sense doesn't really matter.  What matters is credibility in the eye of the public.

                                  "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                                  by ohwilleke on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:48:33 AM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                              •  you also (0+ / 0-)

                                did not address my question about politically-inclined asylum seekers.

                                Tiberius to the Roman Senate upon their assurance that they would pass whatever laws he liked: "How eager you all are to be slaves."

                                by StudentThinker on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:27:10 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  Some would be. (0+ / 0-)

                                  They would enrich American life.  Numerous countries have served as "government in exile" homes and it has rarely been a problem for the host country.

                                  "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

                                  by ohwilleke on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:36 AM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. This proposal is only (0+ / 0-)

      one piece of a bigger puzzle.  The other pieces are much discussed, this piece is comparatively original.

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

      by ohwilleke on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh no (0+ / 0-)

    not with all the problems we already have with helping the people born here. Do we need to bring more people needing help when we can not help our own citizens.

    Life is not about joy and happiness. It is about duty and responsibility.

    by Void Indigo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:42:40 PM PDT

  •  Is there one that goes to canada? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    theboz, jasonbl, doinaheckuvanutjob

    That might be the most used route, for disgusted Americans.

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:48:39 PM PDT

  •  For the Disenfranchised Floridians (0+ / 0-)

    Who fucked up the election? Since Hillary is invoking Slavery, I think its a perfect fit.

  •  Not one "story" (0+ / 0-)

    I agree that there are some serious flaws in the way that the US assesses, grants and (more often) denies asylum claims, but I'm not sure that your proposal fixes the problem.  Asylum is an individualized inquiry, focusing on whether the applicant was persecuted, or has a well-founded fear of persecution.  On the past persecution side, it hinges on very specific personal events--was he a member of X party?  Did he speak at X rally?  Does he go to X church?  There's no way that a US emissary would be able to meaningfully weigh in on these things.  As for demonstrating a well-founded fear--it could be more relevant, but there are other sources to assist.  Having a person on the ground simply won't help the system as it exists now.

    As for picking people on the ground--I work within this system and am troubled by its many, systemic flaws, to be sure.  But I don't think that it is our duty to go accross the world, implant ourselves, and seek out people that are good potential asylum seekers.  And it just doesn't work that way--the law requires an individualized inquiry, and a person showing that something has or will happen to them (or a very, very specific group they are a member of).  It would be nearly impossible to pick people accurately, even with fantastic training.  I'm over-simplifying, but asylum is not "northern pakistan is a terrible place to live for women; you're a woman living in northern pakistan; you're going to get asylum."  The law requires a much more detailed and stringent showing.

    I'm a big fan of making this process fairer.  It is horrendous that an immigrant's fate is so widely different based on what IJ they appear before.  It is equally terrible that we detain asylum seekers the entire time they are in proceedings (they aren't a huge flight or crime risk).  But I don't think this proposal speaks to the real systemic, legal flaws in the system.

    •  What I'm thinking of is not exactly asylum (0+ / 0-)

      as it exists under existing law.  The legal standard would be far less specific and more importantly, non-justiciable.  The agents would be sent out with a mission along the lines of "let's proactively and without any necessary affirmative request for help identify the twenty most deserving people who have been deeply and uniquely screwed over by violations of their human rights by someone, not necessarily under color of law, and have no other way to extricate themselves from their sitautions, and offer bring them to the U.S., and bring them if they agree that they'd like to come."

      These wouldn't be bureaucrats sitting at a desk in an embassy someplace.

      There still needs to be a process to determine the eligibility of people who end up on our doorstep in the U.S. or an embassy someplace asking for asylum.  This would be a separate and additional way to help people, not a substitute for the current system.

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

      by ohwilleke on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 58 comments