TortFeasor
Registered Users (C)
Ladies and Gents:
There has been a number of discussions in this forum regarding the rather lackadaisical and devil-may-care pace the INS has been processing our requests for the refugee travel document (RTD). This issue affects both asylees that are awaiting adjustments of status as well as permanent residents who have adjusted from asylee or refugee status. Without commenting on whether using or renewing national passports is a good strategy (the consensus being that every one should weigh the factors on a case by case basis), I think we should brainstorm and strategize as to whether we should consider administrative processes (demand for internal bureaucratic change) and/or legal action (ala the Ngwanyia v. Ashcroft variety) to demand the following:
1. The INS should process RTD applications in an expedited process (at least in the same manner/time-frame as it processes employment authorization documents (EAD).
2. The validity of RTDs should be for a longer duration. The "Green" Card (which if you have noticed is not green!) is valid for ten years, therefore why cannot the RTD be valid for at least five years?
3. Processing RTDs in an expedited and reasonable time-frame should be part of INS's long-trumpeted back-log elimination project.
In addition to basic notions of fairness and due process, the basis for our case is that we should be afforded our constitutional right to freedom of international travel. The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to all "persons" who reside in this country legally. Some rights are actually so fundamental that they are deemed to apply to even undocumented persons. By unduly prolonging and fumbling the process to issue RTDs, the INS is infringing on:
-- our freedom to international travel, free from unreasonable hindrances and restrictions (note that the Supreme Court has found freedom to domestic travel is more fundamental than international travel, even for citizens. But still international travel is a protected freedom that cannot be abridged arbitrarily);
-- our fundamental freedom to earn a livelihood, if some of us will have to travel as part of our professional endeavors; and
-- the treaty obligations of the United States to afford reasonable travel documents (within a reasonable time) under the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
I can hear the two knee-jerk reactions that may be sent our way: (1) "9/11 changed everything"; and (2) even more interesting "our machine can only process one year approvals" [Believe it or not, Ashcroft's people raised this as an objection regarding why asylees have to apply for EAD's every year in the Ngwanyia case!). These and other excuses can be countered by developing strong legal and policy arguments.
I do not suggest that we should rush in doing any thing. I just wanted to gauge the interest and see if we can open up the discussion and explore this frontier.
What do you think? Are we ready to tango?
There has been a number of discussions in this forum regarding the rather lackadaisical and devil-may-care pace the INS has been processing our requests for the refugee travel document (RTD). This issue affects both asylees that are awaiting adjustments of status as well as permanent residents who have adjusted from asylee or refugee status. Without commenting on whether using or renewing national passports is a good strategy (the consensus being that every one should weigh the factors on a case by case basis), I think we should brainstorm and strategize as to whether we should consider administrative processes (demand for internal bureaucratic change) and/or legal action (ala the Ngwanyia v. Ashcroft variety) to demand the following:
1. The INS should process RTD applications in an expedited process (at least in the same manner/time-frame as it processes employment authorization documents (EAD).
2. The validity of RTDs should be for a longer duration. The "Green" Card (which if you have noticed is not green!) is valid for ten years, therefore why cannot the RTD be valid for at least five years?
3. Processing RTDs in an expedited and reasonable time-frame should be part of INS's long-trumpeted back-log elimination project.
In addition to basic notions of fairness and due process, the basis for our case is that we should be afforded our constitutional right to freedom of international travel. The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to all "persons" who reside in this country legally. Some rights are actually so fundamental that they are deemed to apply to even undocumented persons. By unduly prolonging and fumbling the process to issue RTDs, the INS is infringing on:
-- our freedom to international travel, free from unreasonable hindrances and restrictions (note that the Supreme Court has found freedom to domestic travel is more fundamental than international travel, even for citizens. But still international travel is a protected freedom that cannot be abridged arbitrarily);
-- our fundamental freedom to earn a livelihood, if some of us will have to travel as part of our professional endeavors; and
-- the treaty obligations of the United States to afford reasonable travel documents (within a reasonable time) under the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
I can hear the two knee-jerk reactions that may be sent our way: (1) "9/11 changed everything"; and (2) even more interesting "our machine can only process one year approvals" [Believe it or not, Ashcroft's people raised this as an objection regarding why asylees have to apply for EAD's every year in the Ngwanyia case!). These and other excuses can be countered by developing strong legal and policy arguments.
I do not suggest that we should rush in doing any thing. I just wanted to gauge the interest and see if we can open up the discussion and explore this frontier.
What do you think? Are we ready to tango?