Why violent criminal aliens are being released in the U.S. to kill again

Here is a very bad immigration problem I had not heard of before. Various countries are refusing to repatriate criminal aliens, including murderers, from the U.S.; the U.S. is doing nothing about this; and as a result the criminals are being released into our society where they continue to commit violent crimes including murder.

The story comes from Fox News (go to the end of the article to see our discussion):

Rep raises alarm after murders by illegals blocked from deportation by home countries

Long after they were ordered out of the country, thousands of criminal aliens from places like China, Cuba, Vietnam and Pakistan remain free in the United States to commit new crimes because their home countries refuse to take them back.

For years, this unique problem percolated under the political radar. But recent crimes by immigrant felons have lawmakers scrambling to punish nations that refuse to repatriate their own citizens. The Obama administration and many Democrats in Congress, however, are blocking punitive legislation, preferring to let the State Department handle the issue diplomatically.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, is leading the charge in Congress to change the law, pushing to withhold visas to nations that refuse to take back their own.

“I don’t know why the State Department seems to take the side of foreign countries over our own American interest in the United States,” Poe said, urging the U.S. to tell those countries: “Look, you take these people back or the consequence is going to be no visas for your nation.”

Under a 2001 Supreme Court decision, U.S. immigration officials are only permitted to hold someone for six months after their incarceration. So when a home nation refuses to take back their national, the U.S. is required to release them—no matter what they’ve done.

The issue recently came to Poe’s attention after three especially heinous crimes were committed by men ordered deported years ago.

In June, a judge sentenced 22-year-old Shafiqul Islam, a Bangladeshi national, for the murder of 73-year-old Lois Decker.

“This man was a dangerous criminal,” said Hudson New York District Attorney Paul Czajka. “He should not have been in the United States. At the very least, he should have been in detention.”

Islam murdered Decker after serving a year for sexually assaulting a child. After his release from prison, a judge ordered Islam deported.

Bangladesh, however, refused to take him back. Because of the 2001 high court ruling, Islam stayed in the country.

“Lois had so much more living to do. She’ll never see her grandchildren marry. Or see them have children. She loved her family, her friends and her church,” lamented Decker’s sister Sue Call at Islam’s sentencing hearing.

Police say Decker was at home when Islam broke in and strangled her to death in March. Decker taught Sunday school, volunteered at church and supported veterans’ groups. Her case ignited a storm of criticism in tiny Hudson, N.Y., but it is hardly isolated. More than 50,000 criminal alien immigrants ordered deported remain in the U.S.

Those nations with the highest numbers, in order, are: Cuba, China, India, Pakistan and Vietnam.

Another example is 35-year-old Binh Thai Luc. Luc was a career thief who served an eight-year term in California state prison. A judge kicked him out of the U.S. but when Vietnam refused to take him back, he was released onto the streets of San Francisco. In March, Luc allegedly bludgeoned to death a family of five.

In Boston, a Cambodian gang member stabbed and beat 16-year-old Ashton Cline-McMurray to death with a golf club. The boy, disabled with cerebral palsy, was attacked while walking home from a football game. Originally, prosecutors charged Loeun Heng with murder, which carried a life sentence. However, in 2003 they agreed to a plea bargain, believing Heng could be deported. Last year, when he was released from prison, Cambodia refused to take him back, putting him back on the streets.

“They said he would never set foot basically on American soil again,” said the boy’s mother Sandra Hutchinson. “It’s crazy. They’re just letting him back out there to do it to somebody else.” Eventually, Cambodia relented and took him back.

But these cases caught Poe’s attention. His first bill introduced last year refused any visas—student, business or tourist—to any country that refused to repatriate their criminals. That bill went nowhere, opposed by the travel industry, the administration and Democrats in Congress

Back again in the House Immigration Subcommittee, Poe is trying again. This year, his bill only applies to visas for diplomatic staff from countries that refuse deported nationals. But many Democrats believe even that is too aggressive.

“What Poe’s bill will do is throw a monkey wrench into diplomatic relations. It is a nonstarter for that reason,” says immigration attorney Dave Leopold. “It makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the secretary of State and the secretary of Homeland Security to make intelligent decisions about when to stop issuing visas to countries that refuse to take their criminal alien deportees.”

Poe says the State Department already has the discretion to withhold visas from offending nations, but used it only once in 2005 against Guyana. The country immediately took back its 100 citizens. His bill currently in committee would make the sanctions mandatory.

“These people don’t go back. They stay here. They commit crimes. And the countries that are responsible for them don’t do anything about it. It’s time the United States do something about it and hold these countries accountable,” said Poe. “They aren’t going to have any choice if we pass this law.’

Fox News contacted Democratic members of the immigration subcommittee, but they declined interviews on the topic.

Clark Coleman, who sent the article, writes:

Because their home countries will not allow them to be repatriated, they are released in the U.S.

One solution not discussed is to change the law to permit such criminals to be held in illegal immigrant detention centers, which currently exist only for temporary detention. Make it legal to hold them for life until their home country agrees to repatriate them. Get them some productive job in the detention center if possible, make some cheap educational opportunities available, allow prison ministries access to them, but hold them there.

LA replies:

I don’t think that should be necessary. The measure described in the article—punishing the countries that refuse to take these criminals back by ceasing to grant all visas or just diplomatic visas to those countries’ nationals—is obviously what has to be done. How can one explain our government’s passive acceptance of a situation in which homicidal criminal aliens are let loose in this country, except that our government is against the American people and wants them to suffer, wants them to be harmed and killed by criminal illegal aliens?

You might say, “No, they don’t want people to be killed, they just don’t think that it’s worth hurting tourism in order to protect our people from murderers.”

But to my mind that comes to the same thing. Things that are unacceptable are unacceptable. Obviously it is unacceptable for a country to refuse to take back its criminal nationals who have harmed Americans and who are illegally in the U.S. Forget about the effect on tourism. It’s unacceptable, period. Also, if we began withholding visas, then those countries would yield to us and start taking back their nationals. But that possibility—the possibility of getting our way—doesn’t enter the horizon of Democrats. It doesn’t attract them. It’s not what they want.

Notice the remark of the immigration attorney Leopold: “What Poe’s bill [not granting diplomatic visas to non-cooperative countries] will do is throw a monkey wrench into diplomatic relations. It is a nonstarter for that reason.”

Isn’t that amazing? We are afraid to do anything to offend those other countries. But they have already offended us terribly, by refusing to take back their criminal aliens, and that doesn’t seem to bother us. We are not offended by their outrageous behavior toward us, and at the same time we are afraid of offending them.

This is an example of what I was talking about in my April 2001 NewsMax article, “America No Longer Exists:”

Obviously I do not mean that America does not exist in a physical and institutional sense. What I mean is that there is no longer a social and political entity that believes in itself as a nation distinct from other nations, that defends itself when attacked or insulted by other nations, or that even has the shared will to go on existing as a nation.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 15, 2012 09:42 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):