TortFeasor
Registered Users (C)
As I head out for a business trip overseas for few days, I wanted to present a reasonable reflection on the impending passage of the Real ID Act. This may seem very pompous and rather long (my apologies). On the other hand, I did not want to sink to the level of Hampton8844 and his cohorts of mini Nazis in responding to their nauseating propaganda. It seems that the Tom Delay/White House spin room has moved to this forum!
Shamshon: please do not dignify these people with your responses. They seem to burn with inferiority due to the intellectual and moral superiority evidenced in our positions. Their sycophantic attachment to the very people who despise them should be a proper subject for a future psychological study. In the meantime, just ignore them!
It is great that the much dreaded annual cap is removed. Even if some of us have already adjusted and will not be directly affected, it is a welcome relief for all the asylees that are still in the pipeline. Credit should be given when it is due. Bush pushed for this change and he should be thanked for that. This does not mean though that we have to agree with all of his other dopey policies. It should be noted that this result would not have been achieved without the years of persistent advocacy by various community and professional groups (and yes specially AILA). Other persons also deserve thanking for keeping the issue on the front burner. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (a Texas Democrat) and Senator Sam Brownback (a Kansas Republican) come to mind.
The efforts of the pro-immigrant community and civic groups also helped in mitigating and changing a lot of the scornful edges of the Real ID Act, for example: (i) the duty to show a "central reason" was slightly mitigated in the new burden of proof imposed on future asylum seekers; (ii) the requirements for producing "corroborating evidence" was relatively modified in a manner that favors future applicants; (iii) a new rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal was added under certain circumstances; (iv) immigration judges have to consider the "totality of circumstances" in determining credibility; (v) states can now issue licenses to undocumented persons even if such may not be used for federal purposes; and (vi) the elimination of Sensenbrenner's provisions that allowed vigilante actions by empowering bail bondsmen to hunt alleged undocumented persons. [SIDE NOTE TO HAMPTON - PLEASE DO NOT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB THINKING YOU MAY MAKE MONEY BY HUNTING DOWN ALL THOSE "ILLEGALS"]. These concessions were important and would not have been achieved without the outcry that was heard in the past few weeks.
The fight to deal with some of the remaining obnoxious provisions in the Real ID Act is not over and will continue in other venues. Various individuals and groups will seek to enjoin enforcement of these provisions by seeking judicial review on various constitutional grounds, including: (i) the imposition of unfunded mandates on the states (regarding the new ID requirements); and (ii) the usurpation of judicial power by limiting the review of claims or the denial of habeas corpus (on separation of powers and due process grounds). Therefore, the fight will move on to a forum where short-sighted hysteria and xenophobic sound bites (as those sponsored by Sensenbrenner and Delay) will have no place. There, reasonable and studied lawyers and judges, guided hopefully by close to 220 years of constitutionalism and principle, will give the obnoxious provisions another look and determine if they pass constitutional muster. To those hallowed chambers, the likes of Hampton8844 have no access. What a relief!
Cheerio
Shamshon: please do not dignify these people with your responses. They seem to burn with inferiority due to the intellectual and moral superiority evidenced in our positions. Their sycophantic attachment to the very people who despise them should be a proper subject for a future psychological study. In the meantime, just ignore them!
It is great that the much dreaded annual cap is removed. Even if some of us have already adjusted and will not be directly affected, it is a welcome relief for all the asylees that are still in the pipeline. Credit should be given when it is due. Bush pushed for this change and he should be thanked for that. This does not mean though that we have to agree with all of his other dopey policies. It should be noted that this result would not have been achieved without the years of persistent advocacy by various community and professional groups (and yes specially AILA). Other persons also deserve thanking for keeping the issue on the front burner. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (a Texas Democrat) and Senator Sam Brownback (a Kansas Republican) come to mind.
The efforts of the pro-immigrant community and civic groups also helped in mitigating and changing a lot of the scornful edges of the Real ID Act, for example: (i) the duty to show a "central reason" was slightly mitigated in the new burden of proof imposed on future asylum seekers; (ii) the requirements for producing "corroborating evidence" was relatively modified in a manner that favors future applicants; (iii) a new rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal was added under certain circumstances; (iv) immigration judges have to consider the "totality of circumstances" in determining credibility; (v) states can now issue licenses to undocumented persons even if such may not be used for federal purposes; and (vi) the elimination of Sensenbrenner's provisions that allowed vigilante actions by empowering bail bondsmen to hunt alleged undocumented persons. [SIDE NOTE TO HAMPTON - PLEASE DO NOT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB THINKING YOU MAY MAKE MONEY BY HUNTING DOWN ALL THOSE "ILLEGALS"]. These concessions were important and would not have been achieved without the outcry that was heard in the past few weeks.
The fight to deal with some of the remaining obnoxious provisions in the Real ID Act is not over and will continue in other venues. Various individuals and groups will seek to enjoin enforcement of these provisions by seeking judicial review on various constitutional grounds, including: (i) the imposition of unfunded mandates on the states (regarding the new ID requirements); and (ii) the usurpation of judicial power by limiting the review of claims or the denial of habeas corpus (on separation of powers and due process grounds). Therefore, the fight will move on to a forum where short-sighted hysteria and xenophobic sound bites (as those sponsored by Sensenbrenner and Delay) will have no place. There, reasonable and studied lawyers and judges, guided hopefully by close to 220 years of constitutionalism and principle, will give the obnoxious provisions another look and determine if they pass constitutional muster. To those hallowed chambers, the likes of Hampton8844 have no access. What a relief!
Cheerio