JS>At least you admit that the vast majority of political asylum claims fi
JS>in this country are fraudulent. However, you justify the commission of 
JS>a federal felony, namely False Statement, in violation of Title 18 USC
JS>1001, by saying that these people are desperate and therefor justified
JS>in not only committing one crime, namely illegal entry, but two or more
JS>crimes, false statements and perjury (they have to give testimony under
JS>oath during their asylum interview and again before an administrative l
JS>judge in removal proceedings should it get that far), along with the 
JS>illegal entry, if they pursue a fraudulent asylum claim.
 
         When a man is seeking to exercise the fundamental rights that
are inherent to all men, and other men, for whatever cause or for
whatever justification they have created in their own minds, seek to
deny those fundamental rights, whatever means an individual may use to
defend his rights is justifiable.  You cannot respond to an immoral act
with an immoral defense.  Once the act has been initiated whatever
recourse one chooses against the violator is justified.
         The violation occurs when one set of individuals take it upon
themselves to deny others theior inalienable rights.  This is the
criminal act.  Actions in defense of those rights, therefore, are not
criminal.  
JS>What does that do for those people who have a legitimate, well founded
JS>fear of being persecuted? THAT is the barometer by which asylum claims
JS>are judged. NOT whether or not the economy back home is bad or not.
 
      No man should be required to justify to another his right to
live, his right to come and go as he chooses, or his right to live his
own life as he chooses.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
are rights posessed by all men.  When any man, for whatever cause.
seeks to deny, control, or regulate these rights, they are in the
wrong. 
      If you set barriers to an individuals expression of any of these
freedoms and any individual seeks to tear down, circumvent, or ignore
those barriers, he is not commiting a ctime.  Thebarier itself is the
crime.
JS>What you have done is expanded the justification defense, just as
JS>El Presidente has in the Zippergate matter, by saying that the 
JS>underlying offensive behavior, in this case, illegal entry, perjury, 
JS>false statements, is justified because those that are committing the
JS>crimes are merely seeking to better themselves and are "desperate".
 
        It is more fundamental than that.  Those things you have
classified as "crimes" are merely expressions of basic human rights.
The offensive behavior is the suppression and denial of these rights.
Whatever act is commited in their defense, against the oppressor, is
retalitory in nature and therefore moral.  The immorality is the denial
of liberty.  Defense of one's liberty, in the face of those who seek to
criminaly deny it, cannot be deemed a criminal act by any but those who
seek to distort the law itself for immoral purposes.
JS>I would imagine Billy Bob is equally "desperate" to avoid a judgement
JS>against him in the Paula Jones matter and therefore, since it's merely
JS>a civil matter and involving a sexual affair or sexual harassment, then
JS>it's OK for him to lie about it under oath and to suborn perjury while
JS>he's at it? That's the theory offered by some FOBs. Susan Estridge is
JS>a prime example. She's saying that this is "no big deal" since the
JS>underlying litigation is "politically motivated". What it IS whether
JS>we're talking about Zippergate or illegal aliens defrauding the 
JS>government by filing false asylum claims, is the dumbing down of
JS>what is right and wrong.
  
     Clinton has been accused, by another individal, of a violation of
their rights.  The process of civil litigation is a process that must
be respected in order to preserve those rights, and where applicable,
compensate individuals for violations of their rights by others.  This
is a process that protects the rights of individuals.
     The process you seek to defend is a process created entirely for
the purpose of denial of individual rights.  When Germans were
marching the Jews into the gas chambers and someone asked if anyone was
a carpenter.  Do you really suggest we should be critical of the
individual who lied and said he was when he was not?
     There is an overriding issue here. That issue is the preservation
of the rights of the individual.  If the law is created for the purpose
of denial of those rights, then the weight of criminality does not fall
upon those who desperately claim to be carpenters to preserve their
right, but upon those who seek to deny that right.
JS>Since we're merely dealing with "illegal aliens", it's no big deal that
JS>they lie and file false asylum claims. Right? Wrong. 
 
      We are not "merely dealing with illegal aliens".  We are dealing
with the fundamental and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness.  The "wrong" occurs when men seek to deny others
those fundamental rights, not when men seek to defend them in the face
of those who seek to deny them.
 
       Either we believe in liberty or we do not.  Either we are free
or we are not.  Either we recognize the fundamental and inalienable
rights posessed by all men, or we recognize then for none.  There is no
middle ground.  We are free men or we are vassels of the state. 
 
                                                Mike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------