US Federal Judge Upset About Denial of Asylum to Convicted Felon

Don't believe judges try to legislate from the bench?

Judge Decries Rigid U.S. Immigration Laws - Forbes.com

"Judge Maryanne Trump Barry complained that judges have no discretion in applying harsh and complex laws, and she urged the federal government to intervene in the case of a man from Northern Ireland denied asylum this week by the panel on which she sits, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."

The facts of this case are quite disturbing, actually. The individual denied asylum is...

...Malachy McAllister, a former member of the paramilitary Irish National Liberation Army convicted in the 1981 wounding of a British police officer.

McAllister served three years in a Northern Ireland prison for his role as a lookout in the attack.

There were (apparent) retaliatory attacks on McAllister... most likely after McAllister served his three years in jail...

In 1988, British loyalists stuck assault rifles through the windows of his home in Belfast and fired 26 rounds when only McAllister's mother-in-law and young children were there. No one was hurt.

The conflict between Ireland and England is complex, goes back many years and in reality, is only material in this case because the convicted felon (was) "a former member of the paramilitary Irish National Liberation Army (NLA) and denied asylum".

The judge may complain about "no discretion in applying harsh and complex laws" but that is the way our government functions. Judge Barry bemoans the fact judges are not part of the legislative branch while side-stepping the more important issue of the legal admission of an individual convicted in the wounding of a British Police office via the broad scope of asylum.

The individual's respect for the rule of law obviously runs deep as evidenced by:

1. his entry into the USA via a tourist visa in 1996
2. over-staying that visa
3. working illegally
   
4. and applying for asylum!

Fact is - his original application for a visa ought not have been approved under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It precludes convicted criminals from entering the USA with only minor exceptions - McAllister does not fall into any of the exceptions.

How did he obtain a tourist visa in the first place? Isn't that a question the Judge ought to be asking? It certainly is material to the case.

Once again we have judges pontificating, berating the structure of our government and intimating their roles and lack of discretion in interpreting "harsh and complex laws" established by our elected representatives.

If more judges thought like this one folks, imho - we'd be a nation ruled by judges, who express pity, concern and are outright supporting the wrong category of people for legal immigration.

Summing it up: Breaking the law, especially in attempting to kill an individual, has certain consequences or ramifications. It is not the policy of the United States (nor has it ever been) to freely admit a convicted felon into the US, to permit said felon to overstay their tourist visa, to claim asylum and seek permanent residency within the US.

The case was decided properly, in accordance to law and fortunately, in alignment with good, common sense.


Technorati tags: Immigration Judge Law