California court rejects 1st amendment protections for fleeing Brits
We read:
"Stephen Whittle and Simon Sheppard flew to Los Angeles in July 2008 before they could be sentenced for writing anti-Jewish articles on a website. Hoping they would be protected by America's free speech laws, they immediately asked for asylum, claiming they had been harassed by the British government over their views. However, the pair were taken into custody at the airport and have remained in jail in Santa Ana ever since.
Sheppard, 52, from Selby, North Yorks, told the Los Angeles Times: "We thought they'd hold us for a day or so. We couldn't see how they wouldn't grant us asylum. The things we supposedly had done in Britain aren't illegal in America. "We came to the beacon of free speech in the Western world, which turned out to be a complete fantasy," he said.
US officials have made clear that the pair were not detained for their views but because their visa waivers became invalid as soon as they told immigration officers they intended to remain in America. An official also admitted that the men's legal status in Britain had been a factor in their lengthy detention. "All they had to do was get off the plane in LAX and walk off into the free world," said Bruce Leichty, their former lawyer.
On top of any punishment for skipping bail, Sheppard and Whittle, 42, of Preston, Lancs, face possible jail terms for a string of racist essays attacking Jews, blacks and Asians. The pair, dubbed the Heretical Two by supporters in reference to the website's name, were believed to be the first British citizens to be convicted of publishing racist material online.
The pair had argued that they were protected because the articles were posted on an internet server in California, supposedly beyond the reach of British law. In March, a US immigration judge ordered that the men be deported to Britain.
Mr Leichty told the LA Times the case had "very wide ramifications", adding: "I don't share their views or the way they communicate their views, but I certainly don't think we should be incarcerating people for what they did."
Source
11 comments:
Morons! They should've posted anti-Christian views. That would have given them full protection in Amerika.
Foreigners in the US have no rights under the US constitution, either de facto or by design.
The 2nd for example is understood to not apply to people who aren't citizens, if you own a weapon in the US as a foreigner you're committing a federal crime.
The same is very likely true of the first, especially if there is an extradition treaty with the home country of the foreigner and they are committing a crime under the laws of that country.
And of course in this case the idiots thought they could go to the US and be granted political asylum when there's no such status available for UK citizens in the US AND they entered the country illegally (incorrect visa).
Anon 2:09 a.m. - if foreigners have no rights in the US, why is there such a big stink about Gitmo and those prisoner rights? To the point of possible going through the court system?
Not everyone who applies to asylum gets asylum, that's a simple fact. Some judges for example are very reluctant to grant asylums, you also have to prove persecution which can be hard to do.
What those british folks need to do is head over to Panama or Argentina, in those countries anyone can buy a work visa provided you have the cash ($100-$2000).
Anonymous said...
"Foreigners in the US have no rights under the US constitution, either de facto or by design."
So how is it that the terrorists being held at Gitmo were given the right to legal council?
"So how is it that the terrorists being held at Gitmo were given the right to legal council?"
Beats me. They should be treated the way they'd treat us, and that would certainly not include legal council.
The US has been rather weird in their treatment of the Gitmo detainees, treating them as a sort of mix between POWs, criminals, and refugees rather than the murderous scumbags, most without identity or nationality, that they are.
Under no international treaty do such people have any rights.
You're right. But under King Obummer, they'll get more rights than they've ever had. I prefer my solution. Treat them as they treat their prisoners. End of problem!
Any American judge worth a stinking shit would grant asylum and not send people back to a crackpot system that will throw people in jail for stating their views (no matter how or where they did it). It is clear this judge is a leftist progressive type and he doesn't want to get his political masters of the great socialist movement in europe upset with him.
Of course foreigners have legal protection in the US. It's not North Korea. How can you be so ignorant as to think otherwise...?
And as for the people in Cuba: There are soldiers and there are civilians. Nothing exists in between and terrorists are basically just criminals. and NO ONE can ever bee without certain rights under international law.
They should have claimed that they were enemy combatants sworn to destroy the United States. They'd be shoo-ins for Constitutional protection.
Of course foreigners have legal protection in the US. It's not North Korea. How can you be so ignorant as to think otherwise...?
Because the Constitution does not specifically state that foreigners have the protection afforded citizens of the US.
And as for the people in Cuba: There are soldiers and there are civilians. Nothing exists in between and terrorists are basically just criminals. and NO ONE can ever bee without certain rights under international law.
You are misinformed. There are also catagories such as spies and mercenaries. International law treats all of those catagories differently than the black / white two catagories you mentioned.
Post a Comment