Friday, September 11, 2009

Not Enforcing The Law

You cannot enter the United States as an immigrant or a non-immigrant if you are mentally ill. However, the New York Times is on a roll for a mentally ill Chinese woman, Xiu Jiang, to remain in the U.S. and

She is divorced and has been sterized in China. She certainly is unable to get married being mentally ill and should not be having children. However she has run up an impressive array of expenses in the United States. Cancer treatment and mental illness treatment all at the expense of the taxpayer. Neither of Xiu Jiang's two sisters living in the U.S. have paid for that treatment. But she was able to obtain $35,000.00 despite being an impoverished peasant from Fukian Province in China. How did she do this? Certainly her sisters probably helped. However, she claims that she came to the U.S. for asylum, but never applied for it once she got here, despite the fact that her sisters either knew of the possibility or more likely used it themselves. Curiously she was working while in the U.S. with no problems for years, entering the U.S. in 1995, but was not arrested until 2007 when she was in Florida seeking other employment.

So, they NYT is claiming she is incapable of defending herself in court but she managed to live here for over ten years with no problems.

Liberals are also argueing that she is mentally ill, but no one, especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement is argueing that she should be removed because she is mentally ill:

Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]
(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.-Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
(1) Health-related grounds.-
(A) In general.-Any alien-
(iii) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Attorney General)-
(I) to have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others, or
(II) to have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other harmful behavior...

The law is clear, but ICE and the late Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) took it upon themselves not to enforce this particular part of the law. Mentally ill people are free to immigrate to the U.S. in violation of the law.

Of coure, when this illegal alien gets asylum, her children will follow. Then we will have to support not only a mentally ill woman, but her children as well.

Which brings up the next issue, the law prohibits aliens entering the U.S. who may become a public charge:

(4) Public charge.-

(A) In general.-Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

However, like the mental illness exclusion charge, this is ignored as well. This started during the first Bush administration, but was entrenched during the Clinton Administration and not revived under Jorge Bush. When I was working for the late unlamented INS, we were instructed to ignore section 4 Public Charge. And ICE continues to ignore it with no legal justification.

All this is quite amusing in some aspects. Liberal lawyers and newspapers are argueing before courts that a crazy woman should be allowed to remain in the U.S. and using the fact that she is crazy to justify it, despite the law that says crazy people aren't allowed to enter the U.S. Their arrogance is enormous and the immigration courts and ICE are just ignoring the law that says crazy people can't come here, much less an impoverished crazy person who cannot pay for her medical and mental treatment. And she has two children that will follow, whom she cannot support. And she has two sisters who are also undoubtedly on welfare as well.

Is this the best and brightest that Thomas Friedman and Bill Gates keep claiming we need?

No comments: