JS>I hate to weigh into this but I feel I must.
JS>Mike, I agree with Robert. In this one area of discussion, your pers
JS>experiences have influenced your thought process to the point where 
JS>rationality is at a loss.
JS>With the sole exceptions of Mexicans and Canadians, any other alien 
JS>enters the United States without inspection (ie. they come across th
JS>border surreptitiously) had to do so either THRU Mexico or Canada.
JS>If they are seeking refuge from political turmoil, why is it that th
JS>didn't stop at the first country they came to rather than continue t
JS>United States? Could it be that they are using the claim of asylum a
JS>excuse?
 
MA>       While political turmoil, in the case of many Salvadorans, as
MA>well as some Nicaraguans and Guatemalans, is a legitimate claim, the
MA>prime motive of these and other immigrants is not political asylmn, but
MA>ecconomic asylmn.  I do not subscribe to the proposition that freedom
MA>from political oppression is their motive, but freedom from ecconomic
MA>oppression, which can be even more cruel and more enduring than any
MA>form of political oppression ever devised.
MA>       Mexico, in many ways, is itself a wealthy nation compared to
MA>others such as Honduras which ranks only behind Hati as the poorest
MA>nation in the western hemisphere and, as a result, Mexico does asorb
MA>far more immigrants than the numbers of those who migrate from Mexico.
MA>This is something we ourselves choose to ignore.
MA>        Still, Mexico, compared to the United States, is itself an
MA>impoverished nation and the brighter promise of the United States far
MA>outshines that of any other nation in this hemisphere.  many of those
MA>that come to this land also are aided by family, many "illegal"
MA>themselves, and others who became "legal" after decades of suffering
MA>the experience of "illegality".  
MA>        It is hope which drives these immigrants, a hope denied them by
MA>the shear circumstance of their existance in their homelands.  The
MA>harassment, the constant fear of arrest, the prospect of deportation
MA>being separated from their families and posessions without recourse,
MA>the enormous, life and death, dangers of entry, and the understanding
MA>they will live without rights, without protection of the law, and
MA>without any modicum of personal security, all, in comparison, pales to
MA>the consequences of remaining trapped in their former state.
MA>         Yes, without question, in many cases the claim of political
MA>asylumn is an excuse, but faced with the alternative of immediate
MA>denial of hope, any human being will fight to keep hope alive.  For
MA>these individuals this is a deperate, life or death, battle.  Sure,
MA>they will do whatever they can do, will use whatever means is available
MA>to them, just to not be denied the right to work, raise their families,
MA>and live in ways you and I accept as irrevokable.
JS>I've had the experience of interviewing thousands of people from aro
JS>world who have filed for asylum only to be told that they did so ONL
JS>because it gave them an opportunity to get an employment authorizati
JS>document for a period of time and that their asylum application was 
JS>frivilous and therefore perjurious. 
 
MA>         I do not question this.  It is a struggle on their part.  They
MA>stand alone against the amassed powers of the cold, calculated, and
MA>insensitivity of the state.  These are not numbers, they are people. 
MA>They have lives, dreams, and hopes just like all of us.  
MA>          Just like you and I they will struggle to keep those dreams
MA>alive.
JS>I find it disconcerting that there are people who believe that the o
JS>to get ahead is to abandon their homeland and come here rather than 
JS>to improve conditions at home. Where would we be now if the original
JS>settlers of this country decided that it was too tough to stand up t
JS>British and instead, just fled to another patch of ground?
 
MA>       Where would we be now if they had taken your advice and stayed
MA>home, never comming to this country?
MA>       Those that stood up the the British had the willpower and the
MA>vision to defy the laws of the time, in the name of human liberty,
MA>because those laws were unjust.  Yes I admire them.  Just as I admire
MA>any man who, in the name of liberty, defies injustice.  
MA>        It is not liberty defended these laws represent, but liberty
MA>denied.  I, like our forefathers, choose to take the side of liberty.
JS>Lastly, the defense of justification that you are raising, ie. "it's
JS>these people to violate our law because their intent is to merely ma
JS>better life for themselves" is fraught with problems. Do we extend t
JS>defense to someone who steals, if the reason for stealing is to "mak
JS>better life" for themselves?
 
MA>      If you are unable to distinguish between the exercise of liberty
MA>and theft, then I understand your delima.  It is, however, unfortunate
MA>that we have so degenerated as a people as to make such a distinction
MA>difficult for ourselves.
MA>      A man wishing to come to a nation and work, to build a better
MA>life for himself and for his family is an honorable man.  He is a man
MA>who, through his own energies, will build not only a better life for
MA>himself for for us all and, in that process, make this a stronger
MA>nation.  A man who steals is a man who denies another that which is
MA>rightfully his and therefore a criminal.  I may also point out,
MA>whether one steals the television of another, or the liberty of
MA>another, the act of criminality remains the same.
JS>What about foricble theft, ie robbery? What about embezzlement? At w
JS>point do we say that a person is responsible for their actions?
 
MA>     All individuals are, or at least ought to be, responsibile for
MA>their own actions.  When those actions violate the liberties or the
MA>properties of another they should be held individually accountable for
MA>those actions.
JS>I can understand the reason why someone would do this, come to this 
JS>illegally. However, unlike you, I don't have the luxury of condoning
JS>Nor would I even if I didn't work for INS. As I said, I understand t
JS>reason, I just don't accept it as a justification. 
 
MA>        And I, as you know, do not subscribe to the concept of an
MA>illegal human being.  As we have discussed this for years, I remain
MA>opposed to immigration restrictions, remain dedicated to the
MA>proposition of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all men, and
MA>reject the notion that our nation has anything at all to gain by this
MA>relatively new policy.
JS>Besides, a quick census of the Federal and State prisons show that t
JS>inmate population is somewhere around 35% foreign born, ie. alien. A
JS>were trying to do Mike is "make a better life for themselves". By 
selling
JS>drugs or committing some other crime. 
 
Mike:
At least you admit that the vast majority of political asylum claims filed
in this country are fraudulent. However, you justify the commission of 
a federal felony, namely False Statement, in violation of Title 18 USC
1001, by saying that these people are desperate and therefor justified
in not only committing one crime, namely illegal entry, but two or more
crimes, false statements and perjury (they have to give testimony under
oath during their asylum interview and again before an administrative law
judge in removal proceedings should it get that far), along with the 
illegal entry, if they pursue a fraudulent asylum claim.
What does that do for those people who have a legitimate, well founded
fear of being persecuted? THAT is the barometer by which asylum claims
are judged. NOT whether or not the economy back home is bad or not.
What you have done is expanded the justification defense, just as
El Presidente has in the Zippergate matter, by saying that the 
underlying offensive behavior, in this case, illegal entry, perjury, 
false statements, is justified because those that are committing the
crimes are merely seeking to better themselves and are "desperate".
I would imagine Billy Bob is equally "desperate" to avoid a judgement
against him in the Paula Jones matter and therefore, since it's merely
a civil matter and involving a sexual affair or sexual harassment, then
it's OK for him to lie about it under oath and to suborn perjury while
he's at it? That's the theory offered by some FOBs. Susan Estridge is
a prime example. She's saying that this is "no big deal" since the
underlying litigation is "politically motivated". What it IS whether
we're talking about Zippergate or illegal aliens defrauding the 
government by filing false asylum claims, is the dumbing down of
what is right and wrong.
Since we're merely dealing with "illegal aliens", it's no big deal that
they lie and file false asylum claims. Right? Wrong. 
John , jnsampson@ibm.net 
 "To find reasonable doubt, one must first be capable of reason."
___
 * WR 1.33 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------