And when you leave, go quietly
[crossposted at The Unapologetic Mexican • digg this story]
If ICE seeks permission from a judge, agents can sedate people before deporting them.
Immigration officials have acknowledged that 56 deportees were given psychotropic drugs during a seven-month period in 2006 and 2007 even though most had no history of mental problems. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit over the practice in June.
An internal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo issued Wednesday and obtained Friday by The Associated Press said that effective immediately, agents must get a court order before administering drugs “to facilitate an alien’s removal.”
“There are no exceptions to this policy,” said the memo by John Torres, detention and removal director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
–“ICE will no longer sedate deportees” [emphasis added]
One of the criteria for opting to sedate is “a history of physical resistance to being removed.” Like in the case of Rrustem Neza.
First, let’s look at how Neza tripped ICE’s radar.
Mr. Neza was apprehended after filing a liquor license application for his Lufkin restaurant, called Joe’s Italian Grill.
The government, in court documents, also notes that a state application for a liquor license stated Mr. Neza was a U.S. citizen. False claims to citizenship can result in permanent bars from the country.
No charges have been brought against Mr. Neza, Mr. Gibson said. And the false claim to U.S. citizenship wasn’t made by Mr. Neza but by someone filling out the application, Mr. Gibson said in court documents.
Neza, along with other members of his family, witnessed the political assassination of Azem Hajdari, a democracy activist in Albania. Two of his cousins have already been killed for their knowledge related to the assassination. Two of his brothers have already won asylum.
But Neza has lost his hearing for asylum, and order to “facilitate [his] removal,” they wish to sedate him.
On Aug. 8, at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Mr. Neza repeatedly screamed, “I am not a terrorist,” when immigration agents tried to board him on a flight.
Airline officials refused Mr. Neza’s passage after he told them he was being “illegally deported,” according to documents in a federal district court in Abilene.
No, Mr. Neza. In America’s zero sum game of denying people’s liberty, “terrorists” are exterminated. “Aliens,” on the other hand, are neutralized and sent back to orbit. But both are tortured and drugged in some form or another. I can see where you might have been confused August 8th. These word games are important to preserving democracy, you see.
“My main concern is to prevent the deportation,” said his attorney, Mr. Gibson. “The drugging is just one more mean thing they are doing to this guy to deliver him into the hands of the assassins. My ultimate goal is to keep him out of hands of the assassins.”
Others see it differently.
Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that wants tough enforcement of immigration laws, said it’s “unwise for someone to go over the heads of those who have adjudicated the case.”
As for the possibility of sedation, he added, “We cannot allow policy to exist that if someone yells and screams all bets are off and the laws are not enforced. Otherwise, we’ll have a lot of kicking and screaming.”
What if the person has an awareness that he’s potentially going to his death, Mr. Mehlman? Does that provide a mitigating circumstance for calling the whole thing off?
In this case, we see the rationale government attorneys routinely give to use psychotropic drugs (stronger than your average sedative) on people with no psychological ailments who resist deportation.
In the interim, U.S. government attorneys Scott Frost and Tracy Short argued in a court pleading that “there is exceptionally strong public interest in the enforcement of duly enacted laws of the United States.”
Drugging Mr. Neza with a sedative by a psychiatrist employed by the U.S. Public Health Services will have multiple beneficial effects, the attorneys argue in their pleading. “It will prevent Neza from committing assaultive acts against others, it will allow the United States to enforce its immigration laws, and it will ensure the safety of Neza and others during the removal.”
The federal government cites a 1996 Texas case involving a deportee with the surname of Bechara, who threatened to bring down the plane if he were forced on the plane.
But Mr. Gibson counters that Mr. Neza made no such threats.
It’s sweet and kind of a murderous nation like America to consider the safety of Neza and other people during removal and to drop all concerns that people may be killed after they reach their destinations.
credit to Ann at BEAUTIFUL, ALSO, ARE THE SOULS OF MY BLACK SISTERS for the articles
[...] If I’m Sedated Before I Read Stories Like This Posted on January 13, 2008 by Aunt B. I read this over at Sylvia’s and I felt a kind of metaphysical dizziness, like my mind was still going no, no, no, while my [...]
It May Be Better If I’m Sedated Before I Read Stories Like This « Tiny Cat Pants
January 13, 2008 at 1:29 am
[...] by Vox on 13 January 2008 I just read this post by Sylvia/M at The Unapologetic Mexican, and I just burst into tears. I’m sitting here, [...]
Sending immigrants to die? Sedate them first « Vox ex Machina
January 13, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Notice that his petition for asylum FAILED! What more needs to be said in his case?
jonolan
January 13, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Homeland Security Not Deterred by Fears of Deportee Death
There are a lot of things that need to be said.
1) People shouldn’t be forcibly drugged because they’re not citizens,
2) Especially when it’s not for any medical reason,
3) With medications used to treat medical illness, not normal sedatives, and
4) The practice is inhumane.
It’s one more form of abuse in a long list of abuses where human beings are being treated inhumanely.
Sylvia
January 13, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ahhh…I thought the primary cause of complaint was the deportation of an illegal alien, not the medication used to prevent him from being a danger to those around him.
I really have no opinion on the sedation of violent deportees. I would need more information on their behavior and on which drugs were being used and the qualifications of those who prescribed and administered them.
In general it sounds like a poor practice, but I don’t have enough data to make an informed opinion.
jonolan
January 13, 2008 at 5:07 pm
The causes of complaint are a blend of both situations. But I’m hoping that the issue of drugging people while deporting them doesn’t get tabled. And more is said about America’s immigration system in general so that people have their humanities ascribed to them — they’re not illegal aliens; they’re people who don’t have American citizenship and that makes a huge linguistic difference — and they receive fair naturalization opportunities.
Sylvia
January 13, 2008 at 5:14 pm
If they came here illegally then they’re illegal aliens or illegal immigrants. Fair naturalization opportunities dos not mean letting them all stay here. It means setting up a process, abiding by that process, and punishing people who violate that process.
jonolan
January 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I agree. We should definitely punish people for wanting to eat and wanting to work! It’s an outrage I won’t abide for much longer, I tell you.
ilyka
January 13, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Seriously, Ilyka, the nerve! They think they’re human or something? Pah! Raising a family and earning money from working should never take place within these borders! Most heinous crime known to man.
Sylvia
January 13, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Where did I claim these illegal aliens / immigrants were other than human? Would you just throw our borders open for the world? Our we the “workhouse” for the world’s poor now?
jonolan
January 14, 2008 at 6:53 am
When our companies employ them and pay them wages so that they can live here and support their families, yes. And if you think that’s going to change any time soon, that’s sadly mistaken. There’s already enough room for undocumented workers because they’re here and working and living full lives. The only obstacles blocking them from having a sense of stability are xenophobia and citizenship.
And your continued use of the term “illegal aliens” gives the idea that because they’re not American citizens yet, they’re something other than people who shouldn’t have rights protected and who aren’t contributing members to American society. Because they are. The language matters.
Sylvia
January 14, 2008 at 8:15 am
And… wasn’t the mistake actually made by someone else? Mistakes get made on paperwork all the time. A checkbox here, a misspelled word there – misread one instruction, and you could suddenly find yourself in a world of hurt.
Given the timeline as written, it’s quite possible that he didn’t, at any time, actually do anything wrong. During the period one’s asylum plea is being processed, one is (I believe) allowed to stay here. So while the claim to citizenship was false (but not made by him, and clearly by mistake), he wasn’t an illegal anything. He was waiting for his immigration/asylum status to be decided. There’s a huge difference there.
Magniloquence
January 14, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Rrustem Neza was formally denied asylum, so deportation is the next legal step in the current process.
jonolan
January 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm
jonolan, you exhibit a selective outrage when it comes to ‘rule of law’ in relation to human rights. I visited your blog, and promptly spied an entry that chides the Chinese gov’t for its treatment of someone who was merely trying to shed light on “the filth and refuse of [China's] cities.” (insert bitterly sarcastic Hurricane Katrina bon mot here.) I notice that your post did not challenge the legality of the municipal inspectors’ behavior, which implies that you take issue primarily with the morality of the fatal beating. Do you know whether or not the beating recipient’s actions (those that precipitated his beating) were in violation of national, regional, or municipal codes? If so, would not his death be his own fault?
So it appears that you will make allowances for the inhumane treatment meted out by your own government, while taking time to chastise the behavior of a government half a world away. Given that the rule of law is a constant in both cases, you are applying a moral double standard. Furthermore, given this apparent predilection for moral and intellectual dishonesty, it does not surprise me that you also posted an entry to your blog that praises the misanthropic ramblings of vile Wingnut Welfare recipient and cultural pool pisser Neal Boortz.
Church Secretary
January 14, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Church Secretary,
There is a world of difference between deporting someone and beating them to death when they photograph what you’re doing. In addition, what the Chinese enforcers / officials did was in direct violation of written Chinese law. So…The rule of law applies there, whereas NO laws were violated by Immigration in the Neza case.
On the drugging – I stated I had no informed opinion due to lack of data, but suspected that it is a bad practice.
As for Boortz, if you’d read my post, you’d know that I don’t have a clue who is he or what he says; I just liked the list!
jonolan
January 14, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Okay jonolan and Church Secretary, either stay on topic or take this to either of your sites.
Sylvia
January 14, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Not if you know that the deportee is likely face torture and death. And the severity of the injustice is rather beside the point in this argument (so you didn’t have to conveniently leave the whole drugging thing out of your comparison).
So– you have a copy of Chinese law handy? The CNN article states that an official or two were punished for the sake of P.R., but it doesn’t say any criminal charges are forthcoming. Perhaps your in-depth knowledge of both this case and Chinese jurisprudence can shed some light on this pending discrepancy between the available facts and your definitive statement.
Ah, the Jonah Goldberg approach. You conveniently ignore that Sylvia’s entire post is centered around the drugging, and it contains several helpful links for those who’d like more information. “Lack of data” my ass. You know it is a “bad practice,” but you obstinately avoid dealing with it because it puts an exclamation point on the injustice of the deportation recounted in the post.
Is there some special school out there where wingnuts are taught how to prevaricate? C’mon, citizen, I don’t watch Fox News and I wasn’t born yesterday. If you want to praise Neal Boortz, that’s your sick little business. But if you quote him, praise the quote, then say you “don’t have a clue…what he says…” well, then you just look silly. And finding out more about him– which I would have done with someone whose ‘wisdom’ so impressed me– was as easy as using Google.
jonolan, you’re a hardy little right wing troll– I’ll give you that– but, as is typical with your kind, your ‘arguments’ don’t stand up even to minimal scrutiny.
Church Secretary
January 14, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Trying to stay on topic.
I originally commented on the drugging of deportees, but did touch on the larger issue. Silvia specifically said that the two issues were intertwined. Therefor I assume she is willing to accommodate comment on either facet of the issue.
I do not know if it’s a bad practice. You leave out the fact that public transit is involved and that we can’t have violent people in these situations because our laws forbid them from being physically restrained. My primary concern is whether proper medical oversight is being performed when sedating these individuals.
For China or Boortz, let’s take it to my blog or yours.
Sorry, Silvia.
jonolan
January 14, 2008 at 8:32 pm
[...] And when you leave, go quietly – “The federal government would like to forcibly sedate and deport an immigrant-restaurateur who resisted his removal last August with repeated screams because of fears he’d be murdered back in his native Albania.” [...]
Recommended Reads for January 15th at Faux Real
January 15, 2008 at 9:07 pm