from someone who has some experience with immigration law:
I want to assure you that immigration judges are well aware of the potential for abusing asylum by making sham conversions. However, it is not the IJ's job to marshal evidence of a true religious conviction. As in the Article III courts, the IJs are there to provide a neutral venue for determining an alien's removability and any possible relief from removability under immigration laws.
The IJs have a bit more leeway than Article III judges when it comes to addressing respondents and witnesses, but it is ultimately the respondent's to demonstrate religious conviction--the burden is on the alien to establish eligibility for relief. Then, the DHS trial attorney [TA] may present evidence--including by cross-examining the respondent--demonstrating that the respondent does not sincerely hold the claimed religious beliefs.
Some standard questions asked by TAs to establish Christian bonafides:
Who is Jesus Christ?
What is your favorite story from the Bible?
What is your favorite prayer? Can you recite that prayer or a part of that prayer?
These seem like rather basic questions, but it is astounding how often Christian claimants cannot answer them. It is also fairly easy to spot the respondents who have been coached since they know one and only one story from the Bible, which is inevitably short-handed as: "water to wine." This is a reference to Jesus' first public miracle at a wedding in Cana and is considered an anti-Shibboleth by TAs and many IJs. Most frequently, Chinese applicants can name only this Bible story, as a result of being coached by the smugglers they use to enter the United States. Similarly, applicants who have been coached will say "the Lord's Prayer" is their favorite, and then recite some variation of the traditional Catholic grace before a meal (i.e. not the Lord's Prayer). The smugglers abroad and "immigration consultants" here in the United States are not very imaginative and have no real interest in their victims, so these responses do not change that often.
If the respondent satisfactorily answers these questions, the TA may then escalate to more complex questions of Christian theology. That is a matter of individual discretion, however. Often, you can get a pretty good idea as to the sincerity of the respondent's religious conviction with just those few questions. (Additionally, the TAs deal with many religions on a regular basis, not just Christianity. I suspect--without knowing, mind you--that they have a list of questions and answers prepared for the most common religions. They also prepare in advance of proceedings for this type of inquiry.)
You are right to point out that a person can know the theology of a religion, its practice, and its procedure without genuinely having religious conviction. As with many areas of law, we cannot actually know a person's state of mind, thoughts, and beliefs. However, a person's knowledge and behavior can be a good indication of same. Typically, an applicant for asylum making a religious claim will provide three types of evidence of belief: his testimony, the testimony of others who worship with him or see him at worship or know of his long-standing belief, and documentary evidence like baptismal certificates, photographs from religious ceremonies, etc. All three types are open to inspection and attack by the TA.
Related Posts (on one page):
- 17-Year-Old Who Converted from Islam to Christianity, and Ran Away from Home
- Police Report in Case of 17-Year-Old Girl Who Converted to Christianity and Doesn't Want to Return to Her Muslim Family:
- Rifqa Bary case update:
- Speaking of Asylum for Converts to Christianity:
- Some Thoughts on How Asylum Claims Based on Fear of Religious Persecution Are Treated,
- Miami Is Worth a Mass?
But the lack of knowledge doesn't mean that they aren't Muslim, or that they couldn't possibly be persecuted as such.
I don't see why you'd have to know anything about your religion in order for you to be considered persecuted for it. If people want to kill me because of my religion, why does it matter how much I care or know about my religion? Why is that relevant? If I'm pretty apathetic towards Judaism, but people are trying to kill me because of my affiliation, shouldn't I qualify for asylum regardless of how much I know? Many young children - who know basically nothing of their religion - have been persecuted for their religion, right?
One can have a claim based on fear of religious persecution without sincerely believing in the faith that forms the basis of the persecution. The classic example includes Spanish converts to Christianity persecuted on the belief that they were "secret Jews" often out of guilt by association.
A focus on the reasons of the persecutor, rather than the victim of persecution, is consistent with the law and avoids improper religious inquiry by an ALJ as well. Instead of asking the questions above, they should be asking things like "who persecuted you?," "what makes you think that this was based on religion?," "what could you have done that could have provided a basis for that persecution?"
By analogy, many people who aren't gay are presecuted based upon the belief others hold that thye are gay.
Many nondenominational evangelical Christians might have a hard time with that question. In many such churches, prayer is almost exclusively extemporaneous, and rote prayer is practically unheard of.
Believe what you will - you are not being persecuted for believing in whatever you will - but rather, for being part of a particular group that is opposed to - or simply does not accept - what other people (who number more than you) *think* you should believe in.
This is pretty much what the concept of 'democratic centralism' rests on. Until most of the people around you come to a decision, feel free to try to sway them. Once they do, you're either with them, or against them.
In that case their favorite prayer is the prayer to Lord Wejus as in "Lord Wejus, we just want to thank you for your goodness and Lord Wejus pray that ..."
Ohwilleke,
I thought the original story (Related Post 2) was referencing an immigrant that converted while in the US and feared persecution upon return to his home country. How could he answer questions about actual persecution if none had occured?
Asylum doesn't require actual harm.
"Now I lay me down to sleep..."
I still think refugees should know those answers! I just think it is a little sad and ironic.
Or are you saying that such people are not bona fide Christians?
Cheers,
The persecutors don't care if you know the Lord's Prayer (or the Shema) or not.
I think it is far scarier that most US citizens by birth don't have enough civics knowledge to pass the naturalization exam. They do better when the exam is presented as multiple choice but the actual test is oral as I understand it.
Cheers,
Some years ago a friend was forced, under unfortunate and idiotic cricumstances, to take some sort of test to establish his mental abilities (which were, in fact, quite substantial).
One of the questions in the oral exam was "Who was Martin Luther King?"
His answer, "The father of a well-known civil rights leader," was not cheerfully received, but he did pass the exam.
It seems to me that, in addition to the cases considered by ohwilleke, there is an argument to be made for the validity of the claims of someone whose religious affiliation was deliberately insincere. Suppose, for example, that in order to get ahead, a person attends the socially dominant church, makes donations, etc., even though he or she in fact believes that it is all a lot of nonsense. The regime changes, and affiliation with this church is now a liability. I don't think that I see why this person should not be entitled to a claim of religious persecution.
How many converts to Judaism would be unable to recite the Shma, name the patriarchs and matriarchs, recount the story of the exodus, etc etc. I would assume 100%
Yes, well, I personally think the rest of you lot shouldn't be allowed to drive cars before you understand enough Newtonian mechanics to calculate your own stopping distance, and shouldn't be allowed to vote on transportation issues before you know enough thermodynamics to be able to prove why 30 MPG is easy but 100 MPG almost impossible.
You don't need to know how the machine was built -- either the car or the religion -- to drive it successfully, is the moral here.
It is perhaps enough that there do exist Christians who know enough and are smart enough to nail you, id est reduce you to speechlessness in defense of your own agnosticism, unless you are very well informed indeed.
Hmmmm....the household is 100% agnostic and atheist. There was a time when one had to be one or the other. I used to be 100% agnostic myself, but then I realized that I wasn't quite sure enough in my agnosticism to be 100%. It would be an especially hard case that a household could be 100% atheist and yet never acknowledge the fact by mentioning religion.
Still, the point is well taken. Those who believe don't always know, and those who know don't necessarily believe. And the wisest often don't know anything at all, and the fools think they are wise.
But I think your confidence misplaced nonetheless.
Cheers,
FWIW, agnosticism and assuredness don't seem a good mix. HTH.
Cheers,
I meant that they range between atheism, agnosticism and possibly even very tenuous Christianity, not that they are all these at once. I used to consider myself atheist but never of the strident Dawkins sort. Now I don't consider supernatural questions to be relevant enough to merit any sort of precise claim. I am indifferent to it. I also quite like religious painting and architecture, I might pray in an emergency as an emotional release, and I shamelessly indulge in superstitions (i.e. don't walk under a ladder). I assume that this is all based on aesthetic and cultural preferences. So I am not sure what to call myself, nor do I worry about it.
I am alternately fascinated and appalled by very religious people, especially Catholics.
I think to be culturally competent people should have at least some factual knowledge about the predominant religion that shaped their country's history. Regarding the question of of this thread, I assume that the majority of asylum seekers are just economic migrants looking to move to a developing country, so it is normal that their claims would be closely scrutinized. If you are a Christian fleeing persecution, you should know your new religion inside and out. If you claim to be gay fleeing persecution, you should be ready to make out with a guy in front of the immigration authorities, show them your cute stylish t-shirts and underwear, etc., etc. Because there are millions and millions of these people and each one has a story.
100% agnostic/atheist household == household where 100% of the members are agnostic or atheist, no?
Hey Danny? You know when you were appalled by a Catholic the other day? That was me.
There is, of course to be made for a rule against insincere converstions made for the purpose of obtaining assylum, even if such a conversion would subject the individual to persecution.
Actually my understanding is that among middle class urban Chinese, many (though by no means all) attend Christian house churches not so much for the theology but rather attend the services and convert because they believe the religion is key to social advancement, both because coreligionists will help each other and because God will help His followers. Their actual beliefs are often quite different from those of their American coreligionists (even of nominally the same denomination) and would sometimes be considered quite heretical or amoral. Many would have a great deal of difficulty expounding on any sort of accepted or sophisticated theology. (Others have quite a deep understanding of theology.) However, they are persecuted (on and off) by the state/party. To me it is this last factor which should be determinative in deciding whether to grant asylum. Rather than quizzing people about their theology, judges should be asking experts whether it is likely the individual would be persecuted for his religious beliefs/practices if returned to China.
There is, of course a case to be made for a rule...
damn.
Take your best shot.
I believe both are presently persecuted in Iran, where they originated (geographically).
I really wonder what would happen if immigration officials made it like a driving test and grilled people about the souls of frozen fertilized eggs and how many miracles you needed for beatification, etc.
1. My grandmother was a devout, old school, immigrant Catholic. She never missed Sunday mass. She spent her time in mass saying the rosary (for non-Catholics: basically repeated Hail Marys and Our Fathers). She didn't really listen to the mass at all. Her English wasn't that great, and she was functionally illiterate. Her house was filled with religious statuary and pictures. I doubt she could have recited a Bible story. So I consider this type of inquiry basically irrelevant in probing the sincerity of an applicant's belief.
2. The courts aren't too happy with this approach either. You'll see several circuit court decisions finding that negative credibility findings based on an applicant "failing" the Bible test cannot be upheld.
Having said that, I agree with the commenter: many times the applicants are coached, and coached poorly. My grandmother simply wouldn't have tried to answer these questions. She'd just say, "I don't know," or "I love to pray," or "I pray for Jesus to help us." The applicant struggling to repeat a rehearsed story comes off far less authentic. But again: on review, in the cold, dry transcript, a negative credibility determination may not be upheld. Which is why I go back to my comment in the "Miami is worth a mass" thread. What I liked to see is human witnesses, not testifying to what happened in China, but testifying to the applicant's commitment to a Christian church here in the United States in the 2-3 years that the claim is pending. To me, there's no substitute for this, and it is the single most effective device for separating the wheat of the legitimate refugee from the chaff of the fraudulent claimant.
Scientific thought is certainly allowed its evolution: we understand that, since we are humans who are trying to understand an amazingly complex universe, our understanding will naturally change over time. No one seriously argues, for example, that atoms in the classical era were sharp, dull, or soft, but changed over to the current type once Schrodinger came along.
For another analogy, try the Constitution. Does anyone seriously argue that the underlying document changed from the late 19th century to the 1950s - allowing for separate but equal at one time but not another - or that the underlying document is somehow illegitimate because it can be subject to erroneous interpretations?
Likewise, religious people probably believe that they are humans who are doing their best to assemble human knowledge in order to understand more of the world. You seem to be criticising religious people for making human mistakes, which is puzzling from many perspectives.
In addition to the obvious question, i.e., why are the permitted churches inadequate for your worship? I like to ask open ended questions like the name of the person's favorite book of the Bible and then where is found in the Bible. (Of course, Howard Dean once identified Job as his favorite book of the New Testament, but that just shows thta a medical doctor can be embarassingly ignorant in other areas. One can imagine the jokes if Bush had said something so idiotic.)
Most of this is probably irrelevant. If the IJ believes thta the person will be persecuted for their (possibly inaccurately imputed) religious beliefs, the IJ will probably find an analysis supporting a grant of relif. If the IJ does not believe there is an authentic threat of persecution, the IJ will probably deny it, but the Assistant Chief Counsel needs to make sure that she has provided the IJ some basis for the denial (even though the alien ostensibly bears the burden of proof), usually credibility, but possibly internal relocation, changed country conditions, firm resettlement, etc.
Science changes when we make observations inconsistent with the predictions of scientific theory. Newtonian physics was all well and good when it came to thinking about why cannon balls fired at high speed return to earth in a parabolic fashion or why the planets orbit the sun in the way that they do. Then someone observed an irregularity in the orbit of Mercury -- this along with other observations led to the understanding that energy can exert a gravitational force just as mass can.
Now, our observations or galaxies and clusters of galaxies are again inconsistent with current understanding -- the most popular way around this is to postulate the existence of dark matter. Maybe we will confirm the existence of dark matter or maybe we will find a completely different explanation for it. This evolution of thought process differs markedly from religion, where theological changes often have little or nothing to do with evidence or observation. Good scientists will never make claims of "infallibility" and will always be open to previous understanding being overturned by new data or observation.
Okay, that does help. I am honestly curious and not being facetious. I think the constitutional analogy is stronger than the engineering analogy. We may recognize some historical inconsistency in the constitution but we feel comfortable being governed by a document which seems relevant to the way we want our country to be set up. If there is an unbearable contradiction, we can modify the document.
But science is supposed to simply represent what we know so far. Scientists never claim to reach the definitive answer. They may say "this is our best guess based on what we know". Sometimes scientific beliefs seem almost like religion - we believe (know for sure?) that there are unobservable quarks like strange and charm and top and bottom (which aren't gay though) and if some are combined they could even form a strangelet. There is dark matter and antimatter. That all sounds almost like a theology but everything must ultimately be based on some evidence. And it is tentative and open to being tested and revised as soon as more knowledge is available. But with real theology, I don't see how you can refine the knowledge through experimentation and drive the process forward.. but anyway it is none of my business and I accept that the experts know what they are doing. They certainly have plenty of people working on it full time.
In fact, I see law in a similar manner. Part of why it's interesting, it's just a set of made up rules with varying degrees of consistency between them.
I would think that close to 100% of converts to Judaism would be able to do those things, not unable.
In fact, I see law in a similar manner. Part of why it's interesting, it's just a set of made up rules with varying degrees of consistency between them.
Agreed. In Constitutional law, there is no objective meaning waiting to be discovered by constitutional scholars. Linguists and philosophers who have thought long and hard about the meaning of language have long since concluded there is no such thing as unambiguous language -- every sentence construction has some ambiguity in meaning. We rule out most interpretations as patently ridiculous or absurd but that is a judgment that comes from culture, intuition or common usage. These are considerations outside the text.
In theology, though, there really is a pretense of discovering some objective truth by pondering various texts, revelations and concepts. Now, it's pretty clear to me anyway that the Catholic Church's position on limbo has evolved over time in order to deal with the troubling Christian doctrine that one has to accept Jesus as the Son of God and confess one's sins in order for your soul to go to heaven. Taken literally, this appears to result in a very unjust world -- just as it would be unjust to have murder statutes without a self-defense exception in law. So some consideration needs to give but it is, of course, an entirely human decision-making process.
What happened in 1920 was that Joan was declared a saint. But for the previous 464 years, she had at least been considered to not be a heretic by the Catholic Church.
1. (against the applicant) The culturally naive Chinese applicant for a protection visa who discovered unofficial Christianity - one ground for claiming fear of persecution if returned - and imagined that discovering homosexuality as another ground might make his case stronger.
2. (against the immigration tribunal) (taken from Thomson Reuters' Australian Westlaw equivalent)
MZXLT V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
[2007] FMCA 799, 211 FLR 428
MCINNIS FM
Melbourne
17 April, 29 May 2007
Citizenship and migration - Migration - Categories of visas - Refugee and humanitarian visas - Exclusion of protection - Safe third countries - Availability of Israeli visa to Jewish applicant
Is it impossible for a Jewish refugee to get an Australian protection visa?
The Migration Act 1958 Cth, s 36(3), denies a protection visa to any applicant "who has not taken all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in, however that right arose or is expressed, any country apart from Australia". The Refugee Review Tribunal upheld the denial of a protection visa to a Russian Jew on the ground that she had not taken all possible steps to avail herself of a right to an Israeli visa. The Israeli Law of Return gives "every Jew" "the right to this country as an Oleh" and provides that an Oleh’s visa shall be granted to "every Jew who has expressed his desire to settle in Israel". Expressing no desire to settle in Israel, the visa applicant sought review in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.
Held: (setting aside the tribunal's decision)
(1) Despite authority that the plain meaning of "all possible steps" should not be read down, s 36(3) did not implicitly require a non-genuine expression of a "desire to settle in Israel" by any Jewish refugee seeking an Australian protection visa.
(2) So to rule was to interpret s 36(3) — a question of law for the court — and not to find as to foreign law — a question of fact for the tribunal. It was thus irrelevant whether the tribunal's finding as to foreign law was a finding as to jurisdictional fact.
When I was in medical school they taught me that ulcers were cause by stress and autism was caused by "refrigerator mothers." Now they tell me that ulcers are caused by a bacterium and that autism is a multifactorial disease with genetic and possible acquired components, but the warmth of the mother is irrelevant. How could science get it so wrong! Look at all those mothers with unwarranted guilt, and those type A people who gave up their fast track careers because erroneous medical science told them to.
Isn't it the persecution and the subjective reason for the persecution (on the part of the persecutors) that justifies the asylum?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that "I don't know" is a pretty easy response.
Here, that investigation perforce attempts to divine sincerity of belief by comparing the applicant's responses to the judge's conception of what constitutes "Christianity" (or what have you).
Even assuming that such a comparison by an arm of the State is at all acceptable, it can only exclude false conversion to faiths that set a high bar for conversion. So, no fake Jews will come in. How to get it as a Christian?
Q: "Who is Jesus Christ?"
A: "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior."
Q: "What is your favorite prayer?"
A: "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior."
Q: "What is your favorite Bible story?"
A: [really, anything should enough at this point: for a number of evangelical churches. Any detailed Biblical knowledge is sauce for the meat.]
I don't think it's a judicial investigation into the content of anyone's beliefs. Just a judicial investigation to see if there is any content at all.
But wasn't there a case about this posted last week where the issue involved the sincerity of a Muslim apostate?
In that case, sincerity wouldn't matter, because merely going through the form of announcing your conversion away from Islam makes you an apostate. Even an insincere conversion to Christianity would expose the immigrant to official and unofficial persecution of the most dangerous sort.
So shouldn't the test really be, "Will this immigrant's level of adherence to his new religion expose him to persecution?" and not "Do we think this immigrant can convince us that he really converted?"
Which strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Necessarily, the judge compares the applicant's responses and what constitutes "X Religion." To do that, the judge is ascribing content to "X Religion." I find that quite troublesome.
I think that your proposal is a Very Bad Idea. On the basis of reciting a single slogan a person is issued a green card for the US. How easy. If I knew that I could move to a country where the average salary was twenty times higher than in my country, just by saying one phrase like "I believe in Jesus" or "I believe in Marx" or "I believe in the Koran", wouldn't I be crazy not to go for it? And I would tell all my friends. Even a pet parrot could do it. You might as well advertise that the US is giving away free work visas.
@ Brian
Yes it should be based real risk of violence. But I wonder would the immigration authorities suggest that the claimant not "come out" publicly as X religion, or keep a low profile, thus reducing the risk considerably? (Obviously won't work in Saudi Arabia but surely in China it would)
So someone living in a religious or socially conformist part of the world who wants to work in the US can just say he decided to be [insert most socially hated religion here], i.e. he follows voodoo or satanism? It sounds awfully easy.
Not necessarily. Most religions, especially Christianity, have sects and denominations that differ wildly on any number of points and practices. The judge doesn't need to know if the alien is orthodox within any specific religion, just if he is sincere in his adherence.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of the questions. It's to establish sincerity, which is why it's only one of "three [typical] types of evidence of belief". Even if the person gets some of the questions wrong, that doesn't mean they're not sincere Christians.
I see what you're saying, but the person is still running the risk of being persecuted and by assuming the "repugnant at home" identity is cutting himself off from the land of his birth.
You could make the same "easiness" complaint about purely political claims for asylum. If I'm an Iranian, how "hard" is it for me to make public political statements that will earn me asylum under our current rules? It's just as "easy" to say, "I think we should get rid of the imams and have rule by a parliament assisted by a Shah" as it is to say, "I renounce Islam".
ANY question, irrespective of religious questions could be used to probe the credibility of the claims of persecution, from "what do you fear?" to "what's your favorite prayer?"
But in reality, the questions and responses will be gauged by the particular judges own subjective knowledge of the religion or political circumstances surrounding their nation of origin as well as their own policy biases on whether more or less asylum should be granted, which will expand or contract the leeway given to each particular applicant to scoot in to the country.
Just as a point, asylum is not permanent the way a green card is. (Though even the modern greed card has to be revalidated.) The rest of your point isn't really effected all that much by this though.
I do not object to the point of the questions ; determining sincerity is a necessary element. I object to the means by which that determination is being made.
Explain either the celestial teapot justification or the flying spaghetti monsterjustification.
Tell me three things you find absurd about a particular religion or religion in general.
What religious holidays don't you observe?
Produce three witnesses who saw you some place other than church on Sunday.
Of course the judge will make judgements based on their own biases; that's why I want the wise latina presiding over my case.
It seems like this process comes from a looking glass world. If they persecute because they think you're Christian, why does it matter whether you sincerely-hold Christian beliefs or not? And if nobody knows you're a Christian, again, why does it matter whether you sincerely-hold Christian beliefs or not?
What's the scenario where the deciding element is whether you sincerely hold beliefs for which you would be persecuted were it generally known you held them but the issue is not whether the persecutors believe you hold them but whether you actually do?
It seems perverse and, bluntly, incomprehensible.
Who was Bertrand Russell?
Explain either the celestial teapot justification or the flying spaghetti monsterjustification.
Tell me three things you find absurd about a particular religion or religion in general.
What religious holidays don't you observe?
Produce three witnesses who saw you some place other than church on Sunday.
Yankev: Speaking as an atheist, I'll say that was nicely done.
If you claim you cannot return home after your studies complete and your student visa expires because you have, while in the US, converted to a religion that is being prosecuted in your home country, it is fair to ask, as long as we have restrictive immigration laws, whether the conversion is sincere or a sham for immigration purposes only.
Asylum doesn't require actual harm.
I understand. I was responding to a set of questions that seemed to suppose that it did.
But the example of autism and "refrigerator mothers" can be viewed in terms less harsh for the entire medical profession, if I understand the events right. I believe it was psychiatrists (not all MDs) who first dreamed up and advanced that theory. Other MDs merely accepted the findings (distinct from advancing the theory) because they accepted credentialed psychiatrists' work as being scientifically based, ie: psychiatrists say they're scientists, so they must be doing science.
I think the heliobacter theory of ulcers is a different story. I recall hearing or reading of massive scoffing by ordinary MDs of that theory, going far beyond rational scientific skepticism. Maybe it was just the usual news media hyperbole in reporting, but it certainly appeared that initial rejections of that hypothesis were more based on offense that hoary old theories long considered settled would even be questioned, ie: the science is settled, stress and spicy foods cause ulcers, and how dare you question it!
The error was assuming that long held beliefs must be based on good science simply because they were long held, ie: we wouldn't believe such things if somebody hadn't done the science long ago. Therefore somebody must have already done the science.
But nobody had actually committed science. When proponents of the theory finally did (and I vaguely recall some opposition even to experiments) the new theory prevailed.
Now, if you'll excuse me, per theobromophile at 8.11.2009 12:25am, I've got to get busy converting my collection of old pointy Bohr and Newton based atoms into modern new fuzzy quantum models. After lengthy arduous experimentation I think I've found a solution. Just pop them into a clothes dryer with some fabric softener and a cat for 20 minutes, and viola![1] -- new Schrodinger models!
[1] toss in the viola to drown out the yowling of the cat, which doesn't always live through the procedure.
These people are not claiming that people "think" they are Christians. They are claiming they "are" Christians and will be persecuted as a result.
A claim of "mistaken Christian identity" resulting in persecution is something different.
I agree with Yankev that, in fact, virtually all converts to Judaism woud be this knowledgeable, and more. Of course, this is because conversion to Judaism is not a simple process.
But, supporting the argument that the questions described in the post are foolish for purposes of granting asylum, I'd say that few non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent would fare well on such a test.
What religious holidays don't you observe?
This reminds me of George Carlin's explanation of why he was not an atheist:
"First of all, you never get a day off."
Asylum seeker arrives in the U.S., and promptly converts, or converted very shortly before departing from their home country. They have no personal history of persecution, but can demonstrate a likelihood of persecution if deported based on the experience of now-coreligionists in the fled-from homeland.
Hence, the seeker's home-country authorities are not as yet aware of the religious conversion. There is reason to question whether the applicant is faking conversion or actually has converted. Because faking at a convenient time, when deportation will not likely result in persecution, would not be grounds for asylum. And we don't much want to say, "well, un-convert" to an actual convert.
*ta da!*
I'm sure that if the ploy fails, they can just tell their old country that they were temporarily insane, that they apologize and will never do it again (if the country even decides to pursue it). Usually religious authorities will stop persecuting you if you tell them what they want to hear.
Limbo was always a theological hypothesis. The Church has several levels of teaching (although that's not really the best word choice), each of which require different levels of adherence. There are certain teachings that are dogma, such as the Assumption of Mary, which are considered to be divine revelation. Other teachings - while not revealed from on high - are official teachings of the Church for which there can be no dissent (i.e., abortion is evil). The Church will never contradict itself on a topic on which it has declared debate closed. There are some rules that are just matters of discipline, which can be likened to malum prohibitum crimes, and can be changed. Then there are areas that the Church leaves open to theological debate. Limbo is one of these.
Limbo is an idea that was kicked around for a long time, and which gained and lost favor. In some respects it's like the various interpretations of the double-slit experiment; the Copehagen Interpretation is still popular, but it goes in and out of fashion, and we're not at a point when we can conclude whether it's the correct one. The Church recently decided that, after centuries of thought, it wasn't any closer to an answer and thus there never would be a definitive answer. The hypothesis was dropped.
I don't doubt that the Church's teaching on Limbo may have sounded authoritative to many. But look at it this way: suppose a study conducted by a respected scientist shows what may be a link between holding your cell phone to your head and brain cancer. The study isn't conclusive, and more work needs to be done. But any reasonable person would stop holding his cell phone to his head until the question is resolved. That's sort of what happened with Limbo. The theological implications of this reasonable hypothesis were sufficiently dire to advise parents to baptize their neonates as soon as possible. The hypothesis has been abandoned but, you know, better safe than sorry.
The same goes for political refugees. Unless a person can show they were personally persecuted (as opposed to a group being persecuted), they should be returned to their country. Today we allow Cubans, for example, to arrive in this country whether or not they were personally punished by the Cuban government (so we can see them play baseball). They are strictly economic refugees.
One challenge arises in that a religious conversion can be a "changed circumstance" that will justify reopening of a case, or the filing of a case after the one-year deadline. (In most cases, the applicant must file his application for asylum within one year of entering the U.S.)
I represented an Afghan who had come to the U.S. in the mid-1990s, had filed for asylum based on his having been in the army under the Soviet regime, but whose application was denied. He filed an appeal, and while waiting for a decision converted to Mormonism. At that point he retained me, we filed a motion to reopen and remand based upon changed circumstances, that motion was granted and he was granted asylum at the new hearing.
There's no way that he could show that he was persecuted for his religious beliefs in Afghanistan, short of sending him back and seeing if he were in fact put to death as an apostate from Islam. That's a tough way to find out.
And it would also be impossible to prove that other Mormon Afghans were persecuted for their beliefs, because there are virtually no Mormons in Afghanistan, and no organized congregations, except perhaps among U.S. military personnel.
The Trial Attorney, in cross examination, used an encyclopedia entry on Mormonism. The language used in that entry was different from that which Mormons themselves use to describe their beliefs, and was particularly confusing to my client who was relatively new in the faith. I suspect that this same difficulty arises in the context of other religions as well.
It shouldn't logically have been necessary to show anything about Mormons in Afghanistan. It would have been easy to document that the Taliban (in power or up and coming) would punish with death anyone who changes to a religion other than Islam, no matter if it is Christianity, Buddhism, or Scientology.
Mores the pity. The asylum laws have become a scam--if you are part of a politically connected group or religion or ethinicity--congratulations, you win. If you aren't, then tough. Rather than spending the time and money sorting out the bogus claims, it should be spent on enforcing the immigration laws. Government shouldn't be making it easier for persons to enter the country who don't follow established procedures for entering the country--government should make it harder for those who are making an end run and trying to get to the head of the line. If they have a valuable skill and can contribute to the economic growth of the US, fine. But if they only want to come here because they feel persecuted, then tough.
The US and other countries have international and moral obligations to accept refugees. Many people around the world are victims of real genocide and persecution. The U.S. hardly took in many Jews when the Holocaust was going on, and I think you would agree that they should have. The US has a moral obligation to help other genocide victims such as Darfuris, or people like Iraqis who are refugees because of US policies in their countries. The US has shirked its responsibilities in all these cases as it usually does. Of course there are even more economic migrants. The US should use its stingy little refugee quota to save lives and not spend it on economic migrants who are faking refugee status and would still survive just fine in their home countries.
But there is a huge difference. No one stated that if you don't follow the theory of the constitution, you will be damned for all eternity. No one has been excommunicated in the US for challenging any aspect of the constitution.
Relgious people will always tell us (as I've learned in various threads here on the VC), that religious morals and beliefs never change, and haven't changed since Biblical times. They say this to justify discrimination against gays, and to prohibit gay marriage. Then we bring out instances where the church approved of slavery in the past and so on, and these same people are suddenly all silent.
Worse, there are many religions that are now saying that homosexuality is okay and gay marriage is approved. So -- these same people say that these religions are heretics and wrong. But according to you, it's simply a difference of interpretation. (Which I happen to agree with) But those people do NOT agree that it is simply a matter of interpretation -- they hold fast that morals never change. Even when forced to admit that they do.
Sorry, no excuse, as any Catholic can tell you. That's why the windows of most catholic churches are stained to depict the stories of the Bible. Additionally, the stations of the cross are depicted in every one of them.
This was developed about 1500 years ago for people like your mother precisely because most people were illiterate then, at least in Latin.
Biggest laugh of the day. Obviously posted by someone who never practiced in IC. The IJ's are overwhelmingly in the tank for the aliens, the vast majority of them being former alien representatives.
Do we protect the rights of a person who sincerely believes in Christianity but not the rights of someone who sincerely intends to practice Christianity despite no sincere belief? Those people can be persecuted as far as we're concerned?
That strikes me as incredibly perverse an inappropriate for a free society. We should equally protect the right to practice religions whether belief is sincerely-held or not.
Of for that matter, few American non-Orthodox Jews.
So can any non-converts who subscribe to a disfavored religion, any political dissidents, and anyone else facing a likelihood of persecution. Hey, second history, so what if we send the St. Louis back to Europe and the boat people back to Asia; what’s the worst that could happen to them, right?
A new convert can either be more catholic than the pope or very unsure about their new faith. Either way, having been exposed through their life to a dictatorship where expressing or suppressing their most fundamental level of personal conviction is a matter of life and death, having this new inquisition (from a potential advocate!) leveled at them where they could be sent back to their death, imprisonment or institutional discrimination may put enough stress on the person so as to make for a bad and unconvincing performance.
As for
Uh... "well-founded fear of persecution" eh? What unfounded fears would those be and who establishes them as well founded (aside from the practicing countries) Uh... let's see. If Amnesty International says that heretics get burned at the stake in Country A, pressed by stones in Country B, or just stripped of job and property in Country C, or limited to a few career paths in Country D, I trust that Second History will be there to say the reports are fake, and these well-founded fears are not well-founded at all? I doubt that SH really believes that.
I'd say that killing an apostate, or even simply knocking them down a peg or two in the local caste system is enough to spark a "well-founded fear of persecution" in most people.
This sounds nonsensical to me. If you went to the trouble of converting to Catholicism, it is because you decided that you believe in the Catholic Church, and you should be expected to defend that choice.
You assume sincerity of the applicant. I do not. I think it has been demonstrated that the majority of asylum claims are bogus.
We also know anecdotally that most people accused of crimes, especially those with a criminal record, are guilty of something, even if not the crime they are charged with. Does that justify depriving every criminal defendant of the right to present a defense?
If this it how it works in Europe, which is much harsher on illegal immigrants, I can only imagine how easy it is in the USA.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.