asylee IS refugee!
- Thread starter baianolindo
- Start date
baianolindo
Registered Users (C)
moving along
I took the liberty to thank TortFeasor for his contribution. allow me to quote him:
1. process RTD applications in an expedited process (within one to three months of application receipt - MAYBE 3 to 6 weeks); and
2. as suggested in this thread, the validity of RTDs should be for a three to five year terms.
Why do we demand these? Because:
1. the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution gives us the right to freedom of movement free from unreasonable restrictions and to earn a livelihood, if our means of earning a livelihood entails international travel; and
2. the United States has treaty obligations to afford reasonable travel documents (within a reasonable time) under the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
If we need to take this to the court, I promise to do my utmost to garner support from law firms and other groups.
One last thing: we have to mature and grow up! We are not going to write a letter and sue the INS with nicknames like TortFeasor (FYI: under the common law this means, a "wrong-doer"). So when we sign that letter we should put our "John Hanckocks", as he did when rebelling against British tyranny! I will sign my whole name.
my two cents. I'm sure that at this phase we have to start with our "awareness campaign"! we need more and more signatures. we need an Internet strategy at least to have this initiative grow. sheer number of signatures will change things even among us. we need support. maybe “older” members would like to e-mail to their virtual pen pals for starters.
To Whom It May Concern:
(please include everyone you think may be relevant for this purpose, comments or inside info about already chosen, critics, whatsoever...)
Eduardo Aguirre, Director of
USCISBureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
425 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536
Saxby Chambliss, Chairman
United States Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommitee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Cc: Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Democrat is member also.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcomm...immigration.cfm
OUR Participants:
(who do not wish to be included may just remove her or his nick and, of course, eveyone who'd like to participate, please include your nick here...)
1. hatari999
2. baianolindo (Roman Latkovic, granted asylum on January 13, 1998)
3. asluser
4. karina
5. bringslite
6. Gebre
7. TortFeasor (Dan W.)
8. pedrop
9. ukulele
I took the liberty to thank TortFeasor for his contribution. allow me to quote him:
1. process RTD applications in an expedited process (within one to three months of application receipt - MAYBE 3 to 6 weeks); and
2. as suggested in this thread, the validity of RTDs should be for a three to five year terms.
Why do we demand these? Because:
1. the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution gives us the right to freedom of movement free from unreasonable restrictions and to earn a livelihood, if our means of earning a livelihood entails international travel; and
2. the United States has treaty obligations to afford reasonable travel documents (within a reasonable time) under the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
If we need to take this to the court, I promise to do my utmost to garner support from law firms and other groups.
One last thing: we have to mature and grow up! We are not going to write a letter and sue the INS with nicknames like TortFeasor (FYI: under the common law this means, a "wrong-doer"). So when we sign that letter we should put our "John Hanckocks", as he did when rebelling against British tyranny! I will sign my whole name.
my two cents. I'm sure that at this phase we have to start with our "awareness campaign"! we need more and more signatures. we need an Internet strategy at least to have this initiative grow. sheer number of signatures will change things even among us. we need support. maybe “older” members would like to e-mail to their virtual pen pals for starters.
To Whom It May Concern:
(please include everyone you think may be relevant for this purpose, comments or inside info about already chosen, critics, whatsoever...)
Eduardo Aguirre, Director of
USCISBureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
425 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536
Saxby Chambliss, Chairman
United States Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommitee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Cc: Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Democrat is member also.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcomm...immigration.cfm
OUR Participants:
(who do not wish to be included may just remove her or his nick and, of course, eveyone who'd like to participate, please include your nick here...)
1. hatari999
2. baianolindo (Roman Latkovic, granted asylum on January 13, 1998)
3. asluser
4. karina
5. bringslite
6. Gebre
7. TortFeasor (Dan W.)
8. pedrop
9. ukulele
bringslite
Registered Users (C)
Here is the paln!
This sounds very encouraging, even if nothing happens, at least we can say that we are doing something, instead of passively waiting.
Sound like this is the general consensus on what to do:
-Write to Mr. Aguirre, and see if we can stir up something on the administrative level. I have to admit here, the man sounds very promising, and I noticed that he made some positive changes so far.
Here I suggest that in our first correspondence that we do not make any mention of going to court, sue, etc...We shall first bring our concern nicely.
-The issue we need to address is mainly the RTD expiration issue. We propose a 3-5 years validity (like the Canadianhummm may be I should have went to Canada had I known this before
)
-I also suggest that we bring up the issue of preferential treatment of Asylees vs. Refugees (even though this a judicial issue, and he may not have any authority to change it, but he can at least make a proposal to lawmakers).
Then we will see how the man will respond, and based of that, we will either wait because he promises to do something, or we would open a can of worms, and go MEDIA, which is the strongest tool in this country.
Here let me mention that, before we contact Mr. Aguirre, we should consult with AILA. After all they are the expert and have them review our letter and give us any necessary advice.
So, here is the plan:
-Nominate a committee to represent us (say about 4-5 people). One of these people will act as the group coordinator, and will be the link between the other group members and the rest of us here. To this person, we shall all send an email with our 1st. name, email address, and last name initial. This person will then communicate with other committee members and reply back to the rest of us here to update us on what's going on.
Please ignore any grammar/spelling errors on this post, as I typed it in a hurry, since I have to go to work.
Please post your comments.
God Bless!
This sounds very encouraging, even if nothing happens, at least we can say that we are doing something, instead of passively waiting.
Sound like this is the general consensus on what to do:
-Write to Mr. Aguirre, and see if we can stir up something on the administrative level. I have to admit here, the man sounds very promising, and I noticed that he made some positive changes so far.
Here I suggest that in our first correspondence that we do not make any mention of going to court, sue, etc...We shall first bring our concern nicely.
-The issue we need to address is mainly the RTD expiration issue. We propose a 3-5 years validity (like the Canadianhummm may be I should have went to Canada had I known this before
)-I also suggest that we bring up the issue of preferential treatment of Asylees vs. Refugees (even though this a judicial issue, and he may not have any authority to change it, but he can at least make a proposal to lawmakers).
Then we will see how the man will respond, and based of that, we will either wait because he promises to do something, or we would open a can of worms, and go MEDIA, which is the strongest tool in this country.
Here let me mention that, before we contact Mr. Aguirre, we should consult with AILA. After all they are the expert and have them review our letter and give us any necessary advice.
So, here is the plan:
-Nominate a committee to represent us (say about 4-5 people). One of these people will act as the group coordinator, and will be the link between the other group members and the rest of us here. To this person, we shall all send an email with our 1st. name, email address, and last name initial. This person will then communicate with other committee members and reply back to the rest of us here to update us on what's going on.
Please ignore any grammar/spelling errors on this post, as I typed it in a hurry, since I have to go to work.
Please post your comments.
God Bless!
Last edited by a moderator:
TortFeasor
Registered Users (C)
Moving on
Dear bringslite:
In general, I agree with your proposal. It is good to have a diverse set of perspectives and strategies. I am more confrontational. I guess there is time for negotiation and time to be confrontational. We can try the "Dear Director" letter first and see where it take us. But we should not beg for our constitutionally protected freedom! While presenting our story, we will make references to the constitutional and legal basis of our claims. That should send a subtle message that we will escalate our search for remedies.
I also concur with your suggestion to strategize and think through our actions and consult with AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) and their affiliated entity, the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF). Someone has suggested that we should also discuss this with Mr. Khanna, the head of the law firm that is sponsoring this forum. We can also think of others to talk to.
Now to the committee idea. Excellent! Let's use it as a steering committee to organize our efforts. I even suggest that once the committee is strengthened, we form a voluntary non-profit to advocate our interest and give us a solid institutional base. We can call it "Travel Freedom, Inc." or whatever. I volunteer to do all the required corporate filing and handle legal process issues. I read in this forum that someone here knows how to set up a web-site. Maybe we can have www.travelfreedom.org. By the way, www.freedomtotravel.org is already populated by some interesting character. Check it out when you have time!
We have a lot of technical and professional resources amongst us. Let's use them.
I nominate baianolindo as the group coordinator and interim chair. Let's discuss about others. If you want me in the committee, I am in!
I will be traveling on business for the next week or so and will follow up when I get back. Unlike the INS, I am accountable for finishing my projects on time and will face real consequences if I slack-off on my assignments.
Cheerio
Dear bringslite:
In general, I agree with your proposal. It is good to have a diverse set of perspectives and strategies. I am more confrontational. I guess there is time for negotiation and time to be confrontational. We can try the "Dear Director" letter first and see where it take us. But we should not beg for our constitutionally protected freedom! While presenting our story, we will make references to the constitutional and legal basis of our claims. That should send a subtle message that we will escalate our search for remedies.
I also concur with your suggestion to strategize and think through our actions and consult with AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) and their affiliated entity, the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF). Someone has suggested that we should also discuss this with Mr. Khanna, the head of the law firm that is sponsoring this forum. We can also think of others to talk to.
Now to the committee idea. Excellent! Let's use it as a steering committee to organize our efforts. I even suggest that once the committee is strengthened, we form a voluntary non-profit to advocate our interest and give us a solid institutional base. We can call it "Travel Freedom, Inc." or whatever. I volunteer to do all the required corporate filing and handle legal process issues. I read in this forum that someone here knows how to set up a web-site. Maybe we can have www.travelfreedom.org. By the way, www.freedomtotravel.org is already populated by some interesting character. Check it out when you have time!
We have a lot of technical and professional resources amongst us. Let's use them.
I nominate baianolindo as the group coordinator and interim chair. Let's discuss about others. If you want me in the committee, I am in!
I will be traveling on business for the next week or so and will follow up when I get back. Unlike the INS, I am accountable for finishing my projects on time and will face real consequences if I slack-off on my assignments.
Cheerio
bringslite said:This sounds very encouraging, even if nothing happens, at least we can say that we are doing something, instead of passively waiting.
Sound like this is the general consensus on what to do:
-Write to Mr. Aguirre, and see if we can stir up something on the administrative level. I have to admit here, the man sounds very promising, and I noticed that he made some positive changes so far.
Here I suggest that in our first correspondence that we do not make any mention of going to court, sue, etc...We shall first bring our concern nicely.
-The issue we need to address is mainly the RTD expiration issue. We propose a 3-5 years validity (like the Canadianhummm may be I should have went to Canada had I known this before
-I also suggest that we bring up the issue of preferential treatment of Asylees vs. Refugees (even though this a judicial issue, and he may not have any authority to change it, but he can at least make a proposal to lawmakers).
Then we will see how the man will respond, and based of that, we will either wait because he promises to do something, or we would open a can of worms, and go MEDIA, which is the strongest tool in this country.
Here let me mention that, before we contact Mr. Aguirre, we should consult with AILA. After all they are the expert and have them review our letter and give us any necessary advice.
So, here is the plan:
-Nominate a committee to represent us (say about 4-5 people). One of these people will act as the group coordinator, and will be the link between the other group members and the rest of us here. To this person, we shall all send an email with our 1st. name, email address, and last name initial. This person will then communicate with other committee members and reply back to the rest of us here to update us on what's going on.
Please ignore any grammar/spelling errors on this post, as I typed it in a hurry, since I have to go to work.
Please post your comments.
God Bless!
bringslite
Registered Users (C)
Nomination
While the immediate issue facing us deals with RTD. There are other important issues (i.e. Refugees vs. Asylees-processing timeline). The focus of our "watch Dog/Special interest" group should be aimed at ALL issues that are of interest to asylees.
I second the nomination of as the group coordinator and interim chair.
Cheers!
While the immediate issue facing us deals with RTD. There are other important issues (i.e. Refugees vs. Asylees-processing timeline). The focus of our "watch Dog/Special interest" group should be aimed at ALL issues that are of interest to asylees.
I second the nomination of as the group coordinator and interim chair.
Cheers!
baianolindo
Registered Users (C)
ACTION travel freedom - RTD regulation change!
Girls, guys I have postead thread ACTION travel freedom - RTD regulation change! May I suggest that we move under that one, it is more clear even in its title than this one ("asylee is refugee")
Girls, guys I have postead thread ACTION travel freedom - RTD regulation change! May I suggest that we move under that one, it is more clear even in its title than this one ("asylee is refugee")
Despondent
Registered Users (C)
Two quick points:
1) Non-citizen rights are not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
2) Bringslite, why didn't you apply for GC when you were first eligible?
1) Non-citizen rights are not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
2) Bringslite, why didn't you apply for GC when you were first eligible?
bringslite
Registered Users (C)
The mistake of my life!!
You may be correct bout not have some rights, but as tax paying people we will not sit down quietly watch others get treated better at our expense.
Despondent, to answer your question, I guess I should have done that sooner, and I could have been a USC by now. Well, back then it was not as bad, even though you would have to do an interview, but filing was done at the local level. I was busy going to school, and honestly, could not afford to pay the fee.
I guess that would qualify as my second biggest mistake, the first one was I had the opportunity to seek asylum in Canada, but I choose to do it in the US instead! My cousin, who asked me many times to go with her to Canada, is now a proud Canadian Citizen.
You may be correct bout not have some rights, but as tax paying people we will not sit down quietly watch others get treated better at our expense.
Despondent, to answer your question, I guess I should have done that sooner, and I could have been a USC by now. Well, back then it was not as bad, even though you would have to do an interview, but filing was done at the local level. I was busy going to school, and honestly, could not afford to pay the fee.
I guess that would qualify as my second biggest mistake, the first one was I had the opportunity to seek asylum in Canada, but I choose to do it in the US instead! My cousin, who asked me many times to go with her to Canada, is now a proud Canadian Citizen.
TortFeasor
Registered Users (C)
Really?
Regarding your number 1 point, with deep regret, I have to inform you that you are absolutely wrong!
I will explain my points, as suggested by our interim commitee chair, in the "ACTION-travel freedom-RTD regulation change" thread over the weekend.
The only way you may be right is under the Ashcroft Constitution.
Cheerio
My expose will follow on the
Regarding your number 1 point, with deep regret, I have to inform you that you are absolutely wrong!
I will explain my points, as suggested by our interim commitee chair, in the "ACTION-travel freedom-RTD regulation change" thread over the weekend.
The only way you may be right is under the Ashcroft Constitution.
Cheerio
My expose will follow on the
Despondent said:
TortFeasor
Registered Users (C)
Really (II)?
Sir or Madam: you are also gravely mistaken.
Please see my response to despondent. More in the "ACTION-travel freedom-RTD regulation change" thread over the weekend.
Cheerio
Sir or Madam: you are also gravely mistaken.
Please see my response to despondent. More in the "ACTION-travel freedom-RTD regulation change" thread over the weekend.
Cheerio
thankful said:
baianolindo
Registered Users (C)
thankful said:
It is always great to have a discussion about rights. Human or not. When “Desponent” stated, Non-citizen rights are not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution this statement might suggest that “non-citizens” have no rights whatsoever (“are not guaranteed”)!? It is his (her) right to suggest or think whatever he deemed right. May I add that not even all citizens have the same rights. Foreign-born citizen have no right to be the US President, for example. Tiny line is what we are discussing here. As far as Thankful statement (quoted above) is in question, huh!, there is:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 that states:
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
US are one of signers of this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sapienti sat!
However, having right do this or not, what we are trying to do here is to change a regulation regarding Refugee Travel Document (it is our right, based on the US Bill of Rights and the Government is issuing it, to have it. And this RTD is giving us a right to travel no matter what Thankful said regarding this issue and the Constitution. He is welcomed to start his own action against our right to travel). For that purpose I urge anyone interested in participating to take a look at our new Thread under the ACTION travel freedom - RTD regulation change title!
The Declaration is NOT legally binding on member States.
Learn something basic about international law.
If you write government officials with the tone that you employ here, they would probably toss your correspondence into the trash.
The best way to achieve results is to avoid writing an editorial and to stick with the facts.
Learn something basic about international law.
If you write government officials with the tone that you employ here, they would probably toss your correspondence into the trash.
The best way to achieve results is to avoid writing an editorial and to stick with the facts.
baianolindo said:
baianolindo
Registered Users (C)
thankful said:
I would like to avoid insinuations and / or insults here. We are trying to change a regulation we deemed unfair and you're denying us right the US Goverment already granted to us.
Maybe you would like to help us with your knowledge of international laws? Moreover you assumption how government officials would react show us that you very well may be an expert regarding government as well. Maybe you'd really like to help? If you wish to do so, you may start by interpretating of Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.
Right to breathe is not a part of Constitution also. However, let me quote what much cleverer than myself had to say about this issue:
Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''
Perhaps you should use your beautiful knowledge of the Bill of Rights to defend American citizens who are fined by the Treasury Department for violating the ban on travelling to Cuba. Make this into a Supreme Court case and have your name immortalized in history books.
baianolindo said:I would like to avoid insinuations and / or insults here. We are trying to change a regulation we deemed unfair and you're denying us right the US Goverment already granted to us.
Maybe you would like to help us with your knowledge of international laws? Moreover you assumption how government officials would react show us that you very well may be an expert regarding government as well. Maybe you'd really like to help? If you wish to do so, you may start by interpretating of Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.
Right to breathe is not a part of Constitution also. However, let me quote what much cleverer than myself had to say about this issue:
Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''
What we should do is for someone with good writing skills to post a draft of a letter here. We can then chime in with our suggestions. Once we have an presentable product, we should ask someone (like Mr. Khanna or at least Gilbert) to review it. Then EACH OF US should send the letter unde OUR REAL NAMES to various officials.
Let us START NOW rather than having interminable debates on history and philosophy.
Let us START NOW rather than having interminable debates on history and philosophy.
Despondent
Registered Users (C)
ahhh...the immigrant/third-world mentality...always emotional/argumentative, without any specific counter-argument.
I'm still waiting for someone to clarify...
Here's a hint....statutory vs. constitutional.
bringslite, I was in a similar predicament. I recently got my citizenship, however...took only 70 days in Cincinnati.
I'm still waiting for someone to clarify...
Here's a hint....statutory vs. constitutional.
bringslite, I was in a similar predicament. I recently got my citizenship, however...took only 70 days in Cincinnati.