FAIR–brains behind sb1070–is Anti-LGBT

by

The LGBT community here and everywhere should be against whatever the Federation for American Immigration Reform(FAIR) does. FAIR has such a hard-on for restricting immigration to the United States that they will ignore just about every other important factor that undermines their goal.

The latter conclusion is evident from their policy goals for reforming the asylum process in the United States. For those not familiar with asylum, here is the basic definition. Individuals who, already physically within the United States, have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution  on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion may be granted asylum. Asylum in most cases will lead the individual to citizenship.

Case law has established that LGBT individuals fit within the “membership of a particular social group” grounds for asylum. In other words, if an LGBT individual has suffered past perseuction on account of being an LGBT individual, or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, that individual can obtain asylum in the United States. And if anyone has delved into how life is for LGBT individuals in places like South America, Africa, and the Middle East, I need not go on. But apparently, FAIR has not done its homework. Here is their take on it

Increasingly over the past several years, asylum has been granted to people claiming to fear generalized social customs or conditions…and even social ostracism based on sexual orientation, disease or disability. While these practices are at best inconsistent with Western notions of decency and at worst reprehensible, they hardly fit the intended definition of political persecution as contemplated by the Geneva Convention or our other international obligations. The expansive nature of asylum grants over the past several years have moved us from the murky area of rendering judgments about the actions of foreign governments to the even murkier area of judging social and cultural practices that are at odds with our own.

Don’t be taken in by FAIR’s seemingly neutral tone. FAIR trips up when it states “social ostracism based on sexual orientation”. Ostracism is defined as:

“exclusion, by general consent, from social acceptance, privileges, friendship, etc.”

Simple ostracism on account of sexual orientation is not enough for a person to obtain asylum. Heck, if anything, the LGBT individuals in the United States are largely ostracized from society. No, LGBT individuals who are given asylum do not worry about simple ostracism. What they fear or have already experienced is murder, rape, assault, robbery, and more, all on account of simply being who they are.

Furthermore, granting asylum to LGBT individuals is not a “judgment” of other countries’ social and cultural practices, unless FAIR is willing to admit that something like rape is an acceptable “social” practice of another nation.

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

15 Responses to “FAIR–brains behind sb1070–is Anti-LGBT”

  1. Tweets that mention FAIR–brains behind sb1070–is Anti-LGBT « Life Through the Lens of Bryan -- Topsy.com Says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bryan Johnson. Bryan Johnson said: #LGBT community should be against all that FAIR stands for, including #sb1070 http://bit.ly/aQvHaK […]

  2. Liquid Reigns Says:

    It doesn’t work. Your complaint is: What they fear or have already experienced is murder, rape, assault, robbery, and more, all on account of simply being who they are from their social surroundings, not from their government.

    (BLOG AUTHORS NOTE: EDITED FOR LEGAL FALSEHOODS)

    • bjohns15 Says:

      YOu have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you do not comment on things you are utterly ignorant of.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        And yet you rebutted nothing of which I stated?

      • bjohns15 Says:

        No need to rebut nonsense; I’m not doing your homework for you. I write this blog, you comment. the comments are ancillary the main post, which you have erroneously rebutted. Spend a couple of hours reading Asylum jurisprudence then get back to me.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        No need to spend hours reading Asylum Jurisprudence when you are limiting it to LGBT members, see my response below.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      If you are to make rebuttals, do your homework first, or i will disallow comments that are facially inaccurate.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        There is no right to asylum in the United States(BLOG AUTHOR’S NOTE: THE LATTER SENTENCE IS IRRELEVENT; The applicant has the burden of proving that she/he is eligible for asylum. The government can rebut this presumption by demonstrating either that the applicant can relocate to another area within her home country in order to avoid persecution, or that conditions in the applicant’s home country have changed such that the applicant’s fear of persecution there is no longer objectively reasonable. Technically, an asylum applicant who has suffered past persecution meets the statutory criteria to receive a grant of asylum even if the applicant does not fear future persecution. However, adjudicators will typically deny asylum status in the exercise of discretion in such cases, except where the past persecution was so severe as to warrant a humanitarian grant of asylum, or where the applicant would face other serious harm if returned to his or her country of origin.

        Your claiming “asylum” for them simply based on the fact that they claim to be LGBT persons.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        It is well-established in our case law that LGBT individuals fit within the grounds for membership in a particular social group. THe government does not have to participate directly in persecution; asylum can be granted if the applicant can show the government’s unwillingness or inability to protect the LGBT invididual. And a common factual scenario in LGBT asylum cases does invovle government action, specifically police officers.

  3. Liquid Reigns Says:

    And a common factual scenario in LGBT asylum cases does invovle (sic) government action, specifically police officers.

    You are assuming the police officers are acting in regards to their Government requirements, and not on their own social prejudice. As I said, There is no right to asylum in the United States based on social prejudice, which is what you speak of in your topic.(BLOG AUTHOR’S NOTE: THE LATTER SENTENCE IS IRRELEVANT AND INACCURATE, RESPECTIVELY)

    Your argument involving FAIR doesn’t help your argument at all. FAIR is discussing political persecution as contemplated by the Geneva Convention or our other international obligations (which is how they view the granting of asylum). You compare it to Furthermore, granting asylum to LGBT individuals is not a “judgment” of other countries’ social and cultural practices, unless FAIR is willing to admit that something like rape is an acceptable “social” practice of another nation. Asylum based on social constructs is very hard to get, as it should be, it is based on humanitarian ideals.(BLOG AUTHOR’S NOTE: EDITED FOR GENERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF COMPLEX LEGAL ISSUES I.E. COMMENTATOR CLAIMS TO BE EXPERT IN ASYLUM LAW BUT IS IN NO WAY EVEN CLOSE TO AN EXPERT)

    • bjohns15 Says:

      I’m going to start labeling you as a troll. Your technique, by now, is predictable. You make a flimsy rebuttal of every article involving anything to do with a pro-cir argument. When shown facts to the contrary, you backtrack(see stupid UN convention/procedural due process falsehoods.

      Furthermore, you do not *create *anything. All you do is leech of others’ creations. Go back to your own blog; make your baseless rebuttals there.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        BLOG AUTHOR’S NOTE:

        COMMENT DELETED DUE TO PURPORTED DESIRE TO ENGAGE IN REAL DEBATE, BUT REALLY JUST TO FULFILL HIS OWN IDEOLOGICAL FANCY.

        BLOG AUTHOR IS NOTE A “MERE STUDENT” OF LAW; BLOG AUTHOR HOLDS A JURIS DOCTORATE.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Maybe BLOG AUTHOR should have studied English.

        BLOG AUTHOR IS NOTE (sic) A “MERE STUDENT”

        TROLL ALERT ABOVE

        7. The Political Dissenter/Martyr Troll:

        If your blog is interesting, chances are it’s because you take a stand on things. You have political views you feel passionate about. You build a community of people who are interested in these things and who interact thoughtfully and productively about said things. Heck, some people even manage to disagree civilly. Until political dissenter/martyr troll comes around, starting fights with everyone in a comment thread, spewing its passionate anti-whatever-you’re-into views all over the productive discussion. This troll will likely get mouthy about how pathetic a blogger is for not entertaining dissenting opinions, all the while only being interested in hearing itself talk (or type, as it were). Political dissenter/martyr troll, what good do you think you are doing? Whose mind do you think you are changing? Troll, you are an asshole.

  4. sk Says:

    Funny…when a blog is challenged by superior intellect…they become a troll… I see this every day all over the place…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: