12146: Joseph responds to Racine125 re: Haitian Refugees (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Dotie Joseph <dotiej@hotmail.com>

LOL, in response to your request of getting "a real answer and not remarks
about 'screwing Haitian refugees'," I have no choice but to draw your
attention back to the fact that this whole issue--the reason why people are
protesting and filing rejected claims against the INS--revolves around the
"inequalities in the asylum application process" with regards to recent
Haitian applicants. My email never said anything about "anyone who screams
and kicks loudly enough" being entitled to asylum (although the Elian case
may prove otherwise), nor did I say that "[h]unger is…grounds for political
asylum." Our key point of disagreement lies is in the fact that you don't
"see what is so unfair about" these asylum seekers being detained they way
they are while asylum seekers from just about every other country is not
detained. Racine125, you might want to reread that last sentence since you
insist that the detainees "have not been singled out for 'being Haitian'!"
But that's just it. They are, and we would not be having this borderline
frivolous discussion otherwise. You drew the parallel yourself:

"I don't see why these individuals should be paroled...in criminal cases
bail can be denied for a variety of reasons."

Now if all they are doing is seeking asylum, why must they be treated like
criminals? You (Racine) said and repeated :), "the asylum process should
proceed in the same way for everyone, with regard to documentation,
affidavits of support, and so on," and I agree but that's just it. The
asylum process does NOT proceed in the same way for everyone. I hope we are
now on the same page or at least closer to it.

By the way, you argued that "[i]f a person is in deadly fear of their life
in Haiti, then waiting in a detention center where they are not in fear of
their life is an improvement." Yes, in the scenario you present just about
anything--no matter how wrong or unjust--could be considered an
"improvement," but you can't be serious. The whole point of asylum is so
that you do not have to go back to the place of persecution, is it not? What
does that have to do with being locked up for trying to save your life in A
PLACE WHERE THAT DANGER NO LONGER EXISTS? Although this protocal might be
slightly more plausible if it were applied across the board, but its
not--(as far as I know and anyone on the list who actually knows what
they're talking about can correct me) it only applies to Haitians and as
such I find it very unjustly discriminating and therefore WRONG.

So you “did a lot of political asylum casework in Haiti, and I have a very
good understanding of the requirements,” eh? Perhaps you could share with
the list what some of the requirement for asylum are.

Yours in Truth,
D. Joseph

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com