Immigration

Attorney General Garland Should Reverse an Egregious Legal Ruling Denying Asylum to Refugees Fleeing Forced Labor at the Hands of Terrorist Groups

My recent USA Today op ed explains how and why.

|

 

In this recent USA Today op ed, I explain how and why Attorney General Merrick Garland should reverse a ridiculous and deeply unjust 2018 Board of Immigration Appeals ruling holding that people who were held as slave laborers by terrorist groups must be denied asylum in the United States, under a federal law barring applicants who provided "material support for terrorism." Unfortunately, the op ed is behind USA Today's recently created and unusually strict paywall. I am partly at fault myself, for not noticing that USA Today shifted to this policy, before I submitted this piece to them. However, I can excerpt some parts here:

In June, Attorney General Merrick Garland reversed three Trump Administration rulings that severely limited asylum rights for refugees fleeing domestic abuse and gang violence.  Garland was right to take this step….

But the Biden administration should also reverse another Trump-era asylum ruling that is even more egregious: a decision absurdly holding that civilians used as slave laborers by terrorist groups are ineligible for asylum because their forced labor qualifies as "material support for terrorism" under federal law restricting asylum claims. America's asylum system should provide refuge to victims of slavery imposed by terrorists. Instead, it now perversely holds their oppression against them.

In Matter of A-C-M (2018), the Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals rejected a Salvadoran woman's application for asylum on precisely that basis. This terrible menace to national security "was kidnapped by guerrillas in El Salvador in 1990 and was coerced into undergoing weapons training and performing forced labor in the form of cooking, cleaning, and washing their clothes." Previously, the left-wing guerrillas "forced [her] to witness her husband, a sergeant in the Salvadoran Army, dig his own grave before being killed."

The majority opinion of the Board concluded that "an alien provides 'material support' to a terrorist organization, regardless of whether it was intended to aid the organization, if the act has a "logical and reasonably foreseeable tendency to promote, sustain, or maintain the organization, even if only to a de minimis degree."Board member Linda Wentland criticized the majority's ridiculously broad definition of  "material support…"

But there is an even more basic flaw in the ruling….

A slave laborer forced to work for terrorists is not a threat to American security, nor can she said to be a true supporter of the terrorist organization. Read in context, the word "support" should be interpreted as something akin to "willingly aid…."

If nothing else, equating slave labor with material support for terrorism is precluded by the longstanding canon against absurdity in legal interpretation, a rule that even most strictly textualist judges, such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia, adhere to.

Matter of A-C-M has implications that go far beyond the specific case of one Salvadoran woman…. Numerous insurgents and terrorist organizations around the world use forced labor. The most notorious recent example was ISIS, which enslaved captured civilians—particularly women and children—on a massive scale. Under A-C-MYazidi women used as sex slaves by ISIS must be denied asylum because… their forced labor had a "reasonably foreseeable tendency to promote, sustain, or maintain the [ISIS] organization" by improving the morale of ISIS fighters…..

 

Here's how Garland can easily fix this problem:

Attorney General Garland can reverse Matter of A-C-M, with a mere stroke of his pen. All he need do is use his "certification" power, which empowers the Attorney General to review and reverse BIA decisions.

This authority was used extensively under prior administrations, including under Trump, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions repeatedly used it to reverse BIA rulings favoring immigrants.

The certification system has its flaws. It may well be preferable for all immigration law rulings to be made by fully independent courts…. Ideally, Congress should make clear that escaped slave laborers are eligible for asylum, not leave the matter up to executive discretion. But unless and until Congress changes the system, the certification power exists, and there is plenty of precedent for using it.

NEXT: Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There would be a stronger argument if Ilya wasn’t in favor of letting absolutely everyone in to drive down the price of labor.

    1. True. Ilya has no credibility on immigration.

      1. Is it an irrelevant personal remark to criticize Ilya’s denial of a dose response curve in immigration? Too little, like in Japan, and the economy is sclerotic and stagnant. Too much, and the country is a Third World shithole like California, and unlivable, even if rich.

        Ilya, the dose response curve requires far more work than your simplistic and silly views. What are you a child? However, the work is well worth it. For example, the world’s strongest poison, when diluted has over 700 medical benefits. Somebody was quite clever at not dismissing botulinum toxin and remembered the dose response curve.

        1. This curve likely applies to all legal remedies. It may involve calculus and far beyond the reach of even the smartest lawyers. No such curve has even been worked out theoretically let along empirically. Right now, most legal remedies are at the very low, totally ineffective end. Only rent seeking is a successful lawyer operation.

          1. I feel sorry for all victims of tyrants, Commies, and terrorists. The remedy is not immigration to the US.

            The remedy is giving guns, or today, killer drones, and information. The information is names of the oligarchs who employ their oppressors. The guns are to kill the oligarchs, not millions of peasants and working people. They just want to go home and to care of their families. Kill the oligarchs who are the real enemy.

    2. This’d be a stronger post if it wasn’t ad hominem.

      How did the argument strike you, rather than the arguer? Do you think forced labor qualifies as “material support for terrorism”?

      1. Its not ad hominem to comment on credibility.

        1. You think Prof. Somin’s post was made in bad faith? That he’s lying?

          Congrats on a dumber take than Ed’s. That takes some doing!

          1. Once years ago Somin stated that if one was a convicted terrorist or serious criminal it might be possible to exclude him. Maybe, he wasn’t sure.

            Other than that, he has never, never met an immigration restriction he did not oppose. I’m not sure how you can argue otherwise.

            1. You say he’s not credible.

              What in this post do you not believe?

              1. He is a lawyer, he wrote an op-ed. Its his conclusions we doubt.

                1. Then you should be able to explain why.

                  Weird you haven’t done so yet, and instead keep appealing to Somin just being generally bad on the subjects. Like you prefer some sort of fallacy that isn’t actually probative…

            2. So what?
              Answer this particular pleading.
              Otherwise, stuff it.

              1. What would you say about a Donald Trump op-ed on marital fidelity?

                Read it and refute each argument? Dismiss it entirely?

                1. If it was a piece about a particular event, I’d check it out.

                  I click on the Breitbart links y’all bring to the Open Threads, even though they are never on the level.

        2. Of course it is ad hominem when that is all you have to say about a proposition.

      2. In this particular case, the argument seems reasonable. But that’s more an exception than the rule for Ilya and immigration, so one wonders if some relevant detail was overlooked or obscured.

        1. Dude has an opinion about immigration. You have a very different one.

          So you suspect he may be lying.

          Says a lot about your worldview regarding those who disagree with you.

          1. Strong words from someone who actively encourages that worldview.

            1. What, that people who disagree with me are lying?

              I don’t think you generally lie, you’re just wrong.

              The main two liars I can think of are Ed and Jimmy. Ed is…Ed. And Jimmy has admitted to lying to own the libs. Bob says he’d be willing to lie, but is actually quite honest with his horrible takes.

              1. You lie by omission all the time. You make a plausible sounding statement but leave out a key fact or two or many.

                Its why multiple people here call you Gaslighto.

                1. This entire thread of people who are sure Somin is lying about something but they cant be arsed to figure out what.

                  So forgive me if I don’t really care much about the crew that thinks disagreeing with them is all the proof they need you’re lying.

                  1. You can reason with bigotry, superstition, or belligerent ignorance, Sarcastro. There is no point in trying to persuade these clingers. The sole sensible course is to stomp them into irrelevance in the culture war and at the polls.

                    1. Rev. You are a denier. There is no culture war outside the 90% leftist media. It is a fantasy. Your views are rejected by everyone normal.

                2. Gaslightro!

                  1. We have to achieve consensus on this issue

                    Gaslighto or Gaslightro?

                    1. It’s clear from your previous comments that you do not understand the term “gaslighting.” So spell it however you want.

                    2. Gaslightro flows off the tongue easier.

                      But I can compromise and go with Gaslighto if you prefer.

            2. Also, Michael, I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t dispute my characterization of your worldview.

              Do you think that everyone who you strongly disagree with is probably lying to further their agenda?

            3. Yawn. No, you intentionally mischaracterize things in order to try to score points. And you projected that onto Somin, blaming me for having a worldview where that is a regular thing.

              1. In this particular case, the argument seems reasonable. But that’s more an exception than the rule for Ilya and immigration, so one wonders if some relevant detail was overlooked or obscured.

                Do you think that everyone who you strongly disagree with is probably lying to further their agenda?

                1. Are you misreading or misrepresenting the arguments here on purpose, or through being unable to understand someone else’s perspective?

                  1. Please, if I’m misrepresenting you with these quotes of what your wrote, explain how.

                    so one wonders if some relevant detail was overlooked or obscured.

                    Why does one wonder that? Seems like because you find his previous arguments to be bad, you’ve decided this one must be deceitful.

                    That seems not to follow to me, but maybe you can either correct my understanding of what you wrote, or explain your logic in more convincing detail.

                    1. Your very first comment misrepresented what I said by discarding one explanation that I suggested and significantly modifying the other, all so you could try to form a straw man version of my worldview.

                      Gaslighto indeed.

                    2. No, your first comment was textbook ad hominem. ‘I don’t like his past arguments, so one wonders if some relevant detail was overlooked or obscured.’

                      If you have an issue, write it. Otherwise, you’re just hermetically sealing yourself from the arguments of anyone who disagrees with you.

                  2. I don’t support Somin’s position on immigration either, but I have yet to see an actual argument on this thread from those most vocally opposed to it.

        2. Unless you find a flaw in the argument you should voice agreement rather than attack Somin.
          He may be an “open borders wingnut,” but he is correct here

          1. No, he’s not. And because Somin is an “open borders wingnut”, he misstates the case. The actual decision in the court case gives a far more detailed explanation of what’s going on. A few points.

            1. There is waiver the secretary can pass in extreme circumstances.
            2. In this particular case, Somin leaves out a few details. Like…
            a. The Military weapons training the woman obtained from the terrorist group.

            The truth is, this is sadly a fairly common mode of operations for terrorist and other criminal groups.

            Get ahold of someone, put them under duress, and convince them of the cause. Kidnap a child, turn them into a child soldier, have them shoot some people. Grab some civilians, say “we’ll murder your family if you don’t help us” and the people help out for months or years. Many, if not most, of the people in terrorist/revolution organizations are put under some sort of duress initially. And often, eventually, they use it in turn.

            The law doesn’t give them a pass for it. If you act for a driver for the mob for a couple years, and you say “I had to, otherwise the mob was going to kill my family,” the law doesn’t say “OK, you don’t’ face charges for being the getaway driver, because you would under duress”.

            If you’re a woman helping out a terrorist organization, and getting weapons training from them, it’s a little hard to argue you’re completely a “slave”. You may have been put under duress, recruited under horrible conditions. But you helped out for months, and then they put a gun in your hand and taught you how to use it.

            That’s where the law is coming from.

            1. AL,
              I suggest that you try being held captive as a forced laborer by a cadre of trigger happy lunatics. Then you can talk.

              1. And why you’re at it AL, explain why Old White Joe is throwing under the bus many Afghanis who worked with our troops for years.

                1. Different topic completely. And OWJ isn’t a good role model here.

              2. Sigh…

                You mean “Held captive” while being handed a live AK-47 with live rounds in the chamber?

                Listen, I’m not going to argue that she was under duress. But as explained, that’s how the organizations work. They put you under duress, and but give you increasing freedom and responsibility. It’s how these organizations work.

                If you’re not going to engage in the argument being made, but make ad hominem type arguments (just like the type you were disparaging) then there’s no point here.

                1. “You mean “Held captive” while being handed a live AK-47 with live rounds in the chamber?”

                  Yes. What are your options at that point? Try to shoot your captors and face immediate death and reprisal against your family members, do nothing and be threatened and physically coerced into doing the training, or comply.

                  That’s not freedom in any meaningful sense of the word.

                  1. “You mean “Held captive” while being handed a live AK-47 with live rounds in the chamber?”
                    “Yes. What are your options at that point? Try to shoot your captors and face immediate death and reprisal against your family members”

                    Umm…Yes?

                    They’ve already shot your husband and forced you to bury him. Now, they’re handing you a loaded assault rifle, and they’re directly in front of you.

                    At some point you’ve got to take responsibility for your own actions. At some point “No, I needed to shoot the head off that little girl, otherwise they would’ve hurt my husband” doesn’t work as an excuse.

                    If you’re chained up and literally can’t do anything…that’s one thing. If you’ve got an assault rifle, and still obediently do what’s asked, that’s something else entirely….

                    1. So American slavery wasn’t really slavery because they weren’t physically chained up at all times?

                    2. Oddly enough…they weren’t given assault rifles with live rounds.

                      I would think, if they were, that they wouldn’t be slaves anymore….

                    3. They weren’t chained up either and had individual agency and some managed to lead revolts. Doesn’t make them any less of a slave.

            2. He didn’t leave that out, it’s right in his article where he says that she was coerced into weapons training.

              “If you’re a woman helping out a terrorist organization, and getting weapons training from them, it’s a little hard to argue you’re completely a “slave””

              This is an extremely dumb take. History is filled with examples of forced military service. The Ottoman janissaries come to mind. More recently Child soldiers receive weapons training too, are you going to say they aren’t forced to be there either?

              Just because you give someone weapons and training doesn’t mean they actually have the ability to just kill everyone and escape. I mean they might be able to kill some people before being killed themselves but doesn’t really make them not a slave.

              1. So, just so we’re clear here…..

                Child soldier X kills and rapes a few dozen people. But you’re prepared to offer him asylum in the US because he was “coerced” and could not do otherwise. They made him do it.

                Is that your position? I just want to make sure absolutely sure.

                1. Yes. He’s a child. Jesus, what is wrong with you?

                    1. You see me understanding that a kid shouldn’t be continued to be brutalized by adults? Good.

                    2. That’s not what I see…

                    3. Right because you lack empathy and a good moral compass.

                    4. AL, child soldiers are victims. For Christ’s sake, your Manichean worldview is monstrous.

                      Are you in favor of trying all children as adults?

                    5. Re: Gaslightro…

                      And that’s why you’re Gaslightro…

                  1. Just, so we’re absolutely clear….here’s what were talking about.

                    And rather than someone who, oh, hadn’t committed these crimes. You’re more than happy to give asylum to these people, and have them move in next to you, your wife, your daughters…. Is that what you’re saying….

                    https://news.sky.com/story/south-sudans-child-soldiers-haunted-by-rapes-and-murders-11615337

                    “One young man confessed he was ordered to rape girls and admitted he carried out those orders, forcing himself on four different females. He looked down at the floor as I asked him questions and said he felt “very bad” now, since contracting syphilis and gonorrhoea.

                    Another who said he was only 17 but had been with a militia for the past three years, laughed and smiled while he admitted he “only” carried out beatings and killings but stopped short of raping.

                    When asked about how many people he had killed, he laughed once more, adding: “I don’t know the total… I never know the total.”

                    1. “You’re more than happy to give asylum to these people, and have them move in next to you, your wife, your daughters…. Is that what you’re saying….”

                      First off this is extremely selfish, sexist, and paternalistic. It shouldn’t matter if they’re a wife or a daughter it should only matter if a person is at risk.

                      Second, maladjusted freaks live next to people all the time. Aktenberg presumably lives next to people too. We are talking about a group of people who never had a shot. These are people who were brutalized and will continue to be brutalized if they aren’t granted asylum. You have zero concept of what it actually means to be forced and coerced into things, because you’ve lived a very comfortable life. Your reasoning about why it’s not slavery is based on these “I’d be a hero” fantasies in your head about killing everyone and riding off into the sunset. But your hero fantasies aren’t the basis for either good public policy or sound moral reasoning.

                    2. Oh, LTG….

                      I sincerely pray no one ever has to rely on you.

                    3. Why because I have a realistic understanding of the capabilities of most humans and don’t delude myself into thinking I’m John Rambo like you clearly do?

                    4. No LTG,

                      Let me put this extremely bluntly.

                      If you are a 16 or 17 year old “child” who has murdered and raped dozens of people I don’t think you deserve asylum in this country. I think there are literally hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people who deserve to come to this country before you. People who haven’t raped and murdered their fellow man. I guarantee 95% of Americans think the same thing.

                      I think inviting such people into the country is asking for Americans to be raped and murdered, and because of that, absurdly dangerous in the extreme. And if you can’t see that, I don’t know how to help you.

                    5. Don’t put child in scare quotes. You know they’re a child and I know they’re a child. Don’t try to get out of it. It’s incredibly dishonest to simply say they aren’t kids. You need to admit that’s what they are.

                      And really I don’t care what you think because I know they’ve been brutalized and are just as dangerous as home grown citizens. You have an outsized fear of gangs of child soldiers (who aren’t your skin color) roaming around. But the reality is that most murderers and rapists are home grown. Most crimes are by people with a connection to the victim. Granting a child soldier asylum and giving him access to social services is going to put you and people you know in the same amount of danger as going to school, work, and life generally with violent people and rapists (which I guarantee that you do).

                      Also, allowing them to continue to be forced into soldiery in another country continues both their victimization and the victimization of people in their homeland. But I guess it’s okay if THOSE people get raped and murdered because they’re not like you.

                    6. LTG,

                      If these 16 and 17 year olds were US citizens, and they’d raped and murdered dozens of people, we would try them as adults in this country, and throw them in jail for a long, long, time. As is appropriate.

                      There is absolutely no reason to grant them asylum into the US if they are foreign nationals. At this point they are victimizing other people rather severely, whatever their own previous issues.

                      You can’t seem to get your head around this, for some reason.

                    7. You’re moving the goalposts.

                      Again.

                      And we don’t always try 16-17 year olds as adults, even in rape trials. We make an individualized determination.

                      Quite different from the blanket generalization you’re pushing.

                    8. LTG, “(who aren’t your skin color)”

                      And there it is. An argument based on feelz augmented by the race card.

            3. In this particular case, Somin leaves out a few details. Like…
              a. The Military weapons training the woman obtained from the terrorist group.

              He “left out” this fact by… quoting the court decision that mentioned it?

              Also, duress is a defense to criminal charges.

              And, of course, you have switched the topic from training to criminal acts in support of the organization. Weapons training isn’t support for the organization; quite the opposite: it drains resources from the organization. It’s use of that training to commit other acts that might be support. But there’s no allegation of that.

    3. Ed,
      Focus on the issue. You are throwing up an irrelevant smoke screen, as usual

  2. If there is anything the authoritarian, bigoted clingers who constitute this blog’s carefully cultivated right-wing following can’t abide, it is some genuinely libertarian content at this White, male, movement conservative (and self-described “often libertarian”) blog.

  3. Stopped clock, blind squirrel, etc.

  4. The issue here, as always, is that intent isn’t relevant to questions of status. Whether a fetus has a genetic issue or a prospective immigraant has a disease has nothing to do wirh intent.

    Military law and enemy combatant status work this way. It simply doesn’t matter whether or not one is drafted into an enemy army’s armed forces, whether one volunteered or was dragged kicking and screaming. Ones intent is irrelevant.

    The law here is simply treating a terrorist group exactly the same way as it treats molitaries.

    If US mitary forces had raided the group, they could have lawfully killed or captured her on the spot. There would be little question that she was part of the group’s available forces. Intent is absolutely irrelevant to enemy combatant status. Why should the situation change if, instead of killing her on the spot, she gets a hearing?

    It is no crime to be a soldier. Nor is excludability a concept that is in any way analaogous to crime. It is a matter of status. And like combat and death in combat, and for that matter exactly like unwantedness and abortion, excludability isn’t based on any concept of fairness to the excluded.

    Indeed, since concepts of fairness represent morally based intrusions on sovereign freedom of choice in the exclusion context exactly as in the abortion context, current doctrine would suggest they are misplaced.

    1. I would be remiss if I didn’t again bring up Justice Stevens and Ginsberg’s concurrence in the first Cargart case, holding that moral considerations in abortion were irrational and therefore unconstitutional. If you can kill them, they said, it’s irrational to worry about treating them barbarically.

      This is exactly the case here. If the US military had raided the terrorist group, they could have killed her. Therefore, under the Stevens and Ginsberg concurrence, applying moral considerations like fairness are actually unconstitutionally irrational.

      I’ve said before that I think Congress is fully empowered to change the law and enact a regime of statutory rights based on moral concepts like fairness in the immigration context if it wants to. The fact that foreigners have no constitutional rights with respect to entry and immigration, and the US has plenary power to make immigration decisions based on whatever criteria it wants, in no way implies that moral considerations are irrational or need be irrelevant if Congress doesn’t want them to be.

      1. First Carhart case.

      2. I’m not entirely persuaded by the argument that because I can legally do X, that therefore it follows that I can legally do Y. If you are a job applicant, I am under no obligation to hire you, or even consider you. However, if I do hire you, and sexually harass you, it will not be a defense in your sexual harassment lawsuit that I was under no obligation to hire you in the first place, and therefore you have no rights at all.

        Yes, we could have dropped a drone on her terrorist organization and killed her. How does it follow from that that we can then do anything to her that we like?

        1. His comments aren’t even right on their own terms. A police sniper may be able to shoot a bank robber who’s holding a gun to a hostage’s head. That doesn’t mean that police can go around shooting bank robbers whenever they feel like it.

          If U.S. forces came upon a terrorist camp they don’t have to ask “Are you here voluntarily or not?” before they shoot the person pointing the gun at them; that doesn’t mean they can just go around indiscriminately shooting everyone they see whether the person poses a threat or not.

          1. If you’ve followed my comments at all over the years, you will notice that I repeatedly bring up the Stevens/ Ginsberg Carhart concurrence because i disagree with it.

            Read the concurrence. They said that if you can kill the thing, then professionals should be left to determine the best way to do it, and shouldn’t be constrained by moralists’ ideas about what’s “barbaric.”

            This also distinguishes it from the police suspect case. The suspect is at all times a person. But Stevens and Ginsberg regarded Row as establishing that a fetus is a thing. And it’s the fact that it’s a thing, not just can be killed can be killed at will, as a matter of unfettere choice, that makes moral considerations (in their view) irrational. No rights means thing; thing means anyhropormorphisms like morality are irrational (And not just morality. Ginsberg famously chided Thomas for calling a fetus a “baby.”)

            Of course, fetuses are hardly the only beings in the category of members of the species lacking constitutional rights. This women is also one. Like all extraterritoril aliens, and all enemy combatants, she has no constitutional rights at all. Even when within the US she has no constitutional rights with respect to any decision to admit or exclude her.

            It’s the lack of constitutuonal rights, and interpreting lack of constitutional rights as establishing placement in the category of things rather than persons, that distinguishes this case from the police suspect case.

            Of course, I still very much disagree with the concurrence. disagree that lack of constitutional rights proves thing status or establishes that moral considerations are irrational. And I think that extraterritorial aliens and the law of war are good illustrations of why the claim of basing ones outcome on general principles falls apart the moment one attempts to apply those principles to anything other than abortion.

            1. Read the concurrence. They said that if you can kill the thing, then professionals should be left to determine the best way to do it, and shouldn’t be constrained by moralists’ ideas about what’s “barbaric.”

              That is… not what they said.

              What they said is exactly the opposite: that this law was not motivated by ideas about what’s barbaric, but rather was just intended to undermine Roe.

  5. It’s striking to me that AG Garland hasn’t already done this. Where are the left-leaning immigration thinktanks, and why aren’t they teeing up items like this for a new Democratic AG to address on roughly the same timeline as Trump implemented his Muslim ban? It’s not just immigration. It strikes me that there’s “thinktank gap” between the Left and the Right. The Heritage Foundation (and other institutions on the Right) are adept at churning out ready-to-file bills after bills for right-leaning legislators to introduce. It’s astonishing that the immigrant advocacy groups on the Left didn’t have a “day one” laundry list of Trump-era decisions to be overturned (and then a “day two” list of ready-made affirmative proposals to be implemented).

    1. Except Obama and Trump had similar border/immigration positions…so on Obama’s way out the door he rescinded “wet foot dry foot” and characterized Cuban asylum seekers as “economic refugees” and thus they no longer went to stay with relatives in Miami on a fast track to citizenship.

  6. There’s no semi-retarded third worlder that Somin doesn’t think deserves U.S. citizenship.

  7. Wow. Over half the comments are directed to Ilya personally instead of to the position he took. There’s maybe two comments that constitute a serious attempt to discuss the actual issue, which is whether someone forced to work for a terrorist organization should per se be excluded. How disappointing.

    1. It’s not disappointment if you recognize what The Volokh Conspiracy has become.

      Carry on, clingers. But only inside your homes, unless you get vaccinated.

    2. It was addressed. As usual, Somin mis-states the case, ignoring the weapons training the woman got from the terrorists. Then compares her case to that of sex slaves…

      Not even terrorists are dumb enough to give live weapons training to women that they are using as sex slaves. Or if they are, they’re not alive for long.

      1. He doesn’t misstate the case.

        You just wish he did.

        1. Armchair apparently thinks there is no such thing as slavery unless you are literally chained up at all times. There is no way to state the case in such a way that he would accept it.

        2. He did, Gaslightro

          1. Except he literally mentioned the weapons thing by quoting the Board’s opinion in his article.

  8. How do we know someone was a slave, because they said so? So anybody can serve a terrorist organization, walk in, demand asylum, and the government is supposed to disprove their assertion that they were coerced… how?

    By this logic, terrorist groups don’t even have to infiltrate the American border, they can just walk in, utter the word “slavery,” then immediately commence operations on American soil.

    1. Presumably there’s a fact finding where credibility is weighed. This is not about that determination.

      1. And it’s all going to be based on the word of the third worlder demanding asylum.

        1. Right, because we know that people from the third world always lie. Unlike white people, who always tell the truth.

          1. White Americans don’t need to lie to gain access to our goodies.

      2. Okay, so there’s an asylum seeker making claims that we have no way to refute. What is the government supposed to do, ask the alleged enslaving gang members to show up as witnesses? By that standard, everybody walks in if they say the word “slavery,” because such a claim will always be impossible to disprove. That just can’t be right.

        1. There are plenty ways to gage credibility without additional witnesses.

          You ask for details. You ask them multiple times, and see if little things change.

          You also check against current understanding about the country.

Please to post comments