From the LA Daily News:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — So many women are murdered with impunity every year in Guatemala that a federal appeals court said Monday that they should be considered for political asylum, opening the possibility of U.S. citizenship to similarly situated women in other countries.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the deportation orders of two immigration courts that such a claim applies too broadly. The San Francisco-based court ordered the immigration judges in the U.S. Department of Justice to reconsider granting asylum to Lesly Yajayra Perdomo, an illegal immigrant in her mid-30s who settled in Reno, Nev.
Most important, the court ordered the Board of Immigration to determine whether all Guatemalan women can qualify — a decision that could open the door to similar claims from other countries such as El Salvador, Honduras and others with history of widespread gender abuse.
Or, how about Mexico (population 110,000,000), where as many as 5,000 women have been murdered in Ciudad Juarez alone since the 1990s?
Such a determination would continue an expansion of asylum eligibility beyond the traditional claims of political and religious oppression. Successful asylum applicants have to show they were persecuted because of religion, political beliefs, race, nationality or membership in a particular social group.
Courts in recent years have granted asylum to an increasing number of people claiming persecution of a social group: women fearing genital mutilation, victims of domestic violence and other gender-based claims.
But courts have never opened the possibility of asylum to such a large social group as all the women of Guatemala, which has a population of 13.5 million.
More than 3,800 Guatemalan women have been murdered since 2000 and fewer than 2 percent of the crimes have been solved, according to the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California, San Francisco's law school.
"This is not a phenomena limited to Guatemala," said Karen Musalo, head of the center.
This is the first such case to reach this high in the United States' court system, which has grappled with determining gender-based claims for asylum, she said.
The timeline for resolving the issue is unclear because the courts aren't under any deadlines to act....
The Department of Justice didn't return a telephone call.
I can't imagine better American People Policy Planning than to decide that the more violent and criminal your relatives, your in-laws, and the kind of men you like to have sex with are, the more you have a legal right to permanently move to the U.S., along with your children (who are likely the offspring of your violent boyfriends).
Why didn't we think of this three generations ago? America would be awesome by now -- it would be like a Mad Max movie.
Posts
41 comments:
More than 3,800 Guatemalan women have been murdered since 2000 and fewer than 2 percent of the crimes have been solved, according to the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California, San Francisco's law school.
I can't believe these numbers are right, but there are more (way more) than 3,800 total murders in Guatemala every year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#cite_note-ocavigu-13
http://www.ocavi.com/docs_files/file_385.pdf
IOW, women make up less than 10% of all murder victims in Guatemala. That can't possibly be right, can it?
If lefties and feminists can generalize enough to say that Guatemalan men are such violent sexist bastards that their women are entitled to come live with us Americans, can we not say that Guatemalan men shall not be permitted to move to our fair land? If their traditional culture is so freaking nasty that we must accept their women as refugees, why in God's name do we have to accept the rest of them. If we let their nasty men move to our country, don't they start doing the exact same thing? Or does the magical water and soil in America instantly turn them into peace-loving lefties?
This insanity first dawned on me some ten years ago when the 9th Circuit said that women from cl!t-chopping North African countries got an automatic green card. Why? The feminist lawyer persuaded the court that women seeking refuge from cl!t-chopping were discriminated against because they were women. And THEN it turns out that it is those sick savage WOMEN, NOT MEN who were doing the very cl!t-chopping they were allegedly escaping! And then it turns out that they continued their sick, brutal, unsanitary child-mutilating once they got to the USA!!!
In the Twin Cities Somali women bring in "cutters" from out of town to carve up over 90% of the Somali girls genitals, and the police, doctors, social workers, nurses, and feminists all look the other way.
I pray to God that there is a place in hell that awaits all of those liberals and bleeding hearts who have looked the other way and pretended they don't see.
I don't know a policy of letting in slutty Latinas with poor judgment about who they sleep with could be quite popular.....
Do judges not consider the long-term consequences of their rulings?
Too bad it's not about the Yanamamo -- then we'd have hard data to show these numbnuts that killers have more children than non-killers, with all that would portend for their immigration here.
Good concluding paragraph. Feminists cannot grasp that males are not aliens from another planet who dropped to the Earth to harass females; then this policy might have a basis. Rather, they have been bred by the choices of their female ancestors, so the policy is stupid.
If we are to have no practical borders, then why do I pay taxes to support a clearly superflous and undesired nation-state? Why should I pay for a military to protect the borders of artificial, dysfunctional shitpiles like Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo when the borders of my own still viable country are ignored?
Since the USG apparently thinks anybody who can fog a mirror is worthy of American residency, I say dissolve the USG, as it's apparently an unworkable entity that just gets in the way of transnational movement of goods and people.
Immigration will become a matter of contract: you'll be either an owner, a tenant, or an invitee. People unable to establish their bona fides will be arrested as vagrants, taken to the edge of town, and told to keep walking.
Darwin hater! Oh, and Racist! There had to add that. Great policy, why don't we just take all the Roma in prisons in Eastern Europe? Clearly all their problems stem from economic injustice. Maybe we could mandate that our melanin challenged women have children with our melanin blessed citizens (or non-citizens). That would guarantee Darwin got a shot at all our children.
For a few years I had fun with college feminists on this very point.
They would point out to me how Evil and Violent men were compared to women. (This was back in the glory days of the Take Back the Night marches and demos.)
When pushed, some would even point to the FBI murder and violent crime rates, comparing men's rates to women's rates.
At which point I would feign surprise and question the DOJ stats as flawed, and perhaps sexist (since they showed a gendered difference in crime rates.)
At this point, some of them could smell blood in the water and would challenge me: did I have any basis for rejecting government stats? Why should a gender difference make them questionable? We trust the DOJ!
Once they were committed to the stats and their fundamental fairness,, however, I would drop the race bomb: according to those self-same statistics, black men were several times more Evil and Violent than white men.
At which time they all scattered and ran for cover. After a while, I was so practiced that it wasn't even fun. The deer in the headlights look as all three of their feminist neurons desperately scrambled for a PC rejoinder just looked sad and pathetic.
So have some fun. Tell a feminist that Guatemalan women should not be given asylum. Let her foam at the mouth about how callous that attitude is given the horrific sexism and patriarchy Guatemalan women face. Once the hook is set, thank her for raising your consciousness and ask her how we can expel all those über-savage Guatemalan men from OUR country. ... At which time you will get that same delightful deer-in-the-headlights PC look.
Just wait until the Africans here about this one. We will be flooded with African women trying to seek "asylum" from the violence of their home continent and, of course, these women will bring their sons with them who can then go around murdering and raping Americans when they are old enough.
the plus side of the high-fertility hispanic immigrant wave is the large number of available young women in sexual bloom. These do tend to collapse more or less completely into submission under the moral force and presence of a stronger man they're attracted to, at least in my experience in the border states.
it's funny how sensitive script writers write their unsuccessful "beta" histories into tales of lost love, where "alpha" types are often unsympathetic but successful even in the fictional love story. On this score, the latin film Amores Perros provides a more or less perfect rendering of roissy stereotypes (criminal macho dominant alpha male, sensitive beta brother, and woman in between who should choose the beta but doesn't). Film noir, true, but the storyline may have been drawn from the writer's actual experience.
More than 3,800 Guatemalan women have been murdered since 2000...
That's 380/year, in 2008 Guatemala had a population of 13.6 million. Call it 6 million women, which is over-conservative. Works out to a murder rate of 6.3 per 100,000 women. Taking half the pop gives 5.55 per 100K. In 1998, the rate for female blacks was about 9 per 100K in the US. FBI says in 2004 the overall US homicide rate was 5.5 per 100K. I used the first numbers I found on the webs, so the by year comparisons aren't perfect, but there is no epidemic of murdered women in Guatemala by US standards. They'd be safer at home.
In general, one can get a feeling of how sincere advocates of refugee status for women in shithole cultures are by what they think of chain migration of the refugees' male relatives and men from that country immigrating in general.
If being around Guatemalan men is so dangerous that all the women qualify as refugees, the only sensible thing to do is to hunt down and deport every Guatemalan man in the US, prohibit family reunification for the women, and ban all immigration and tourism from male Guatemalans.
I'm certain, without even looking, that the activists support all these policies, right? right? What, they want unlimited and unregulated immigration of these brutal, violent men so they can hunt white women too? I'm very disappointed.
The stated murder rate for G. women is about 1/10 that of some of our cities. Where are we to get asylum?
We have been, or at least I have been, discussing this over at the Atomic Nerds blog. There are an awful lot of wimminz, it seems to me, who are sexually attracted to guys who are very likely to be right nasty to them, and beat them, and all that.
Sam Brownback proposed something like this during the immigration debate a couple years ago; like that any woman from a sharia- or FGM- or just spousal-abuse-prone- country should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S.
This is much of the logic in current immigration policy anyway; that distinguishing between some "true" asylum-worthy condition like persecution on the one hand the general basic crappiness of much of the world on the other is arbitrary and heartless, and so basically all third worlders should be treated as asylum seekers and basically we should have not limits or standards on immigration.
More than 3,800 Guatemalan women have been murdered since 2000
An average of 380 women a year.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/gt-guatemala/cri-crime&all=1
Overall homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. 43.9737
Population: 13,002,206
So that's about (44 * 13M/100,000) = 5720 murders a year, almost entirely men.
Everyone who lives outside the United States is morally eligible for politically asylum here, according to neocons - because, according to neocons, America is the shining land of the free and the rest of the world is...not.
(Cue Emma Lazarus reading.)
If the entire population of the world moved to the United States, things would be ideal! After all, it isn't the people who are the problem. It's those menacing countries they are from - all those evil rock formations, forests, and deserts.
Once again: IMMIGRATION GUMBALLS.
How about letting in men from Afghanistan because of the number of men killed in the war?
Or for that matter from another war torn area, or any other place where men may be drafted and sent off to die.
to be honest, I think a lot of your commenters (myself included) would be all in favor of female-only mass immigration selected on the basis of attractiveness
How hard do you suppose the dept. of justice was arguing its case?
Abigail Thernstrom just stabbed us in the back.
Sigh.
Is there no end to this idiocy? If not then let the judges and human rights activists pay all the costs associated with these refugees.
Dear commenters,
Enough
with
the
alpha/beta
BS.
-Love, Science
keypusher: I can't believe these numbers are right...
Lynn & Vanhanen guesstimate an average IQ in Guatemala of 79.
Which means that the 120-ish IQ that you would want in a Homicide Detective is going to be pretty much non-existent [throughout the entire populace].
In Guatemala, you'd probably be lucky if you could find a "Homicide Detective" with an IQ of 95.
Justthisguy: We have been, or at least I have been, discussing this over at the Atomic Nerds blog. There are an awful lot of wimminz, it seems to me, who are sexually attracted to guys who are very likely to be right nasty to them, and beat them, and all that.
If you are just now figuring this out, then you really are a nerd.
Or a teenager.
Or both.
[And if you really are just a teenager, then here's a word to the wise: NICE GUYS ALWAYS FINISH LAST.]
If we are to have no practical borders, then why do I pay taxes to support a clearly superflous and undesired nation-state? Why should I pay for a military to protect the borders of artificial, dysfunctional shitpiles like Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo when the borders of my own still viable country are ignored?
Since the USG apparently thinks anybody who can fog a mirror is worthy of American residency, I say dissolve the USG, as it's apparently an unworkable entity that just gets in the way of transnational movement of goods and people.
This is roll on the floor hilarious! Excellent point! And guess what? It gets even worse. While the USG is doing everything it can to dissolve the borders for everyone wanting to come here, it is actually making it harder for bona fida Americans to leave. You now have to have a passport to visit (and return from) Mexico and Caribbean.
If we're going to make the borders open for Mexican and other immigrants, why not get rid of it completely and let Americans themselves come and go as the please? Even better, why not just get rid of the federal government altogether?
Not too many "Hot" women from Guatemala. They tend to be on the short and squat side, not adapted to the more abundant calories found in the modern diet. They do prefer the more violent, macho men found in their home countries, and will import them if they can.
File under Alpha, Beta, and Chris Brown & Rihanna. Ike and Tina Turner, the sequel.
At any rate, this is not sustainable. Sure, the hereditary elites (think Clintons and Daleys) want it, along with the SWPL set and non-Whites to create a majority voting bloc. Its happening in the teeth of what looks like a decades long recession. Already there is cultural pushback.
Whiskey, I'm sorry she dumped you.
Please get over it.
Soon.
This could actually benefit the US... in the total absence of welfare and with a strict prohibition against chain immigration. Under our current system it's too stupid for words.
If asylum extends to anyone with a plausible fear of ordinary criminal violence, then it's time to put asylum as a whole back on the table. I know that's not going to happen now, but when the crisis comes a push-back is coming along with it, and asylum will be among the targets.
Who's next? Perhaps all the men in Sweden who are forced to pee sitting down?
Do judges not consider the long-term consequences of their rulings?
In this context, I would most concerned if the answer was 'No, they dont'.
However I'm even more worried the answer is actually 'Yes, they do'.
I don't know a policy of letting in slutty Latinas with poor judgment about who they sleep with could be quite popular.....
Yeah, I was thinking the same.
But...
In reality are these slutty Latinas or in fact unprepossesing mestizos, with the emphasis firmly on their indigenous roots?
Er, um, 3800 murders of womenover a decade means 380/year.
Assuming 50% of murders are of women, that makes 760 murders per year in Guatemala, a country of 13.5 million people.
What would be a murder rate of 5.63 per hundred thousand. Which is better than the vast majority of American cities:
en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Maybe the US should be importing Guatemalans-to make their cities safer.
(LA has 10 per 100000 BTW)
When it comes to defending your borders, the US is better than Canada. At least the Tamil Tigers seem to think so, since they land their rusty boats in British Columbia rather than further south. Once they get here they play the system like a fiddle , and soon they are all set up with welfare and free health care.
Most Canadians are really angry about it and think the government should torpedo the latest ship before it can enter Canadian waters. Of course that won't happen. They will be brought ashore and will be all lawyered up and getting refugee status before you can turn around.
Personally I think so many crooked immigrants have got government jobs now that the whole system is corrupt from top to bottom. I want to go back to the 1960's.
'Why didn't we think of this three generations ago? America would be awesome by now -- it would be like a Mad Max movie.'
Sarcasm or despair?
Rich..London
The UK has just decided to grant asylum to homosexual men who are 'persecuted' in their homelands (which strangely enough are all 3rd world nations with a long history of illegal immigration to the UK).
Ironically, when Britain signed the Geneva convention on asylum way bak in 1948, homosexuality (or 'buggery' as British law called it), was punishable by very heavy prison sentences and/or forced psychriatric treatment ( ie Alan Turing).British police routinely acted as decoys entrapping homosexuals in public toilets.
Homosexuality was only officially tolerated in the UK in 1968, (Northern Ireland still does not).British police continued the practice of entrapping homosexuals right through the 1980s and even early '90s.
Yet nobody claimed that the UK was a 'persecuting' nation when it was a founding signator of the Geneva convention.
They might not all be innocent victims.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1236323/Female-armed-robber-stripped-beaten-set-alight-lynch-mob.html
OK, in the United States just short of 80% of murder victims are male. Higher than I expected, actually.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html
In Guatemala, the ratio seems to be more like 90%-10% (see my first post). And yet Guatemalan women are in such gender-based peril that every single one of them may be entitled to asylum?
Here is the (number-free) opinion.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/12/06-71652.pdf
I live among and work with a large Guatemalan population. Most of the women do not speak English. Even though all of them came north with their husbands/boyfriends, none of them claim to have a man at home when they come for benefits.
If they are working for another Guatemalan or Hispanic, their employers will to a man ask 'how much can they make to get benefits' rather than report as required by law for them to receive benefits.
When they do deal with the authorities good luck on getting the women to speak for themselves. Usually their oldest male child speaks for them.
They have brought nothing but drugs and crime to our area. They don't even do 'jobs Americans won't do' it's either crime or nothing.
They don't even do 'jobs Americans won't do' it's either crime or nothing.
My guess would be that the criminals are also on welfare, in which case it would be crime AND nothing.
"I don't know a policy of letting in slutty Latinas with poor judgment about who they sleep with could be quite popular....."
You must not have seen Guatemalan women.
Post a Comment