What happens when you're deported without being deported?

by ozziepost 9 Replies latest social current

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    Interesting how the legalists are everywhere, eh?


    US expels Sydney man after Capitol scare09:57 AEST Fri Apr 15 2005

    Expelled Australian tourist Wen Hao Zhao will land back in Sydney on Saturday under the watchful eyes of American immigration officers.

    Zhao, who paralysed the centre of Washington DC in a tense stand-off outside the Capitol building on Monday, was scheduled to be released from a US immigration detention facility in the US capital on Thursday.

    US officials, who declined to be named, said Zhao will be escorted on to a passenger plane by officers from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and they will stay with him until he lands in Sydney on Saturday morning (AEST).

    "We will accompany him," a US official told AAP.

    "We will make arrangements with the appropriate Australian officials at the other end to make sure he is met."

    Zhao, 32, was crash-tackled in a spectacular arrest as he stood outside the Capitol building with two suitcases.

    During the stand-off Zhao, who had earlier asked to speak to US President George W. Bush, refused to tell authorities what was in his bags so it was feared he was a suicide bomber.

    Zhao was arrested and held in US custody until Thursday's release.

    He did not contest his removal from the US which sped up his return to Australia.

    "He is being expelled from the United States, not deported," an official explained.

    "A deportation is a legal requirement. A deportation would require he enter court proceedings and a judge would issue an order of removal for a deportation. This was not needed."

    Australians wishing to visit the US on a holiday do not need a visa to enter because Australia and the US share a visa waiver program.

    But Zhao, because he is now deemed a visa waiver violator, will find it tougher to re-enter the US if he attempts it in the future.

    He will not be automatically refused, but will have to apply for a visa just as a citizen from a country would without a visa waiver relationship with the US.

    The history of his removal from the US will be on his record.

    "He is a visa waiver violator, so he is going to have to request a visa like any other person from a non visa waiver country," the official said.

    "He will have to have permission to re-enter the US.

    "He would not be excluded, but he would have to request permission from the United States and his history would be considered."

    Zhao, whose arrest was captured by TV crews and beamed around the world, is the latest high-profile visa waiver violator expelled from the US.

    He joins British streaker Mark Roberts who was arrested then expelled after he ran naked on to the field of last year's Superbowl in Texas.

    "It was similar incident," an official said.

    The official said Zhao had breached the visa waiver program in numerous ways during the stand-off in DC.

    "When you enter the US under a visa waiver program there are public safety provisions to it and by him acting the way that he did, causing a scare, causing law enforcement to deployed, refusing to comply with law enforcement officers, additionally outside the nation's capital, you just don't conduct yourself that way when you're a guest of the country," the official said.


    ©AAP 2005

  • Honesty
    Honesty

    I bet you're happified to live Down Under instead of here!!!

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    What is your point? and more importantly how does this relate to the theme of this board?

    -Eduardo

  • Heatmiser
    Heatmiser

    Just more splitting of the hair that the judicial system is so profound at.

    Eduardo, you being a lawyer should get the point of Ozzies post. No it doesn't have a JW theme, but it IS an interesting story.

    Heatmiser

  • G Money
    G Money

    My take on it is a disturbing trend I've seen in the American legal system. As the US has protections for people, most of those protections are invoked when there is the threat of incarceration or criminal charges.

    The US government agencies are going to more of a civil system where you are guilty until proven innocent, or the legal standard is a preponderance of the evidence, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. As the article stated, it was not a deportation and had fewer legal remedies.

    Some examples of trends are the IRS, child support and local governmental agency fines as well as the expulsion. Basically the government agency gets to do what they want and will face less resistance whilst the citizen has fewer remedies. For all intents and purposes these are broad rebuttable presumptions drawn in the favour of the government. Take away somebody's right to redress grivevances and right to an attorney or make them exhaust administrative remedies with a kangaroo court, I mean administrative law judge or similar figure, and you discourage opposition or raise the stakes and price.

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    Heatmeister:

    Well i don't really see it as splitting of hairs. I think this is just a situation where a certain set of rules apply. I thought the article was fairly straightforward in explaining that the deportation process which is a combination judicial/USCIS process and which applies to visa-visitors who violate the terms of their visas and "illegal" aliens isn't applicable to the guy. Since the guy was from Australia and basically didn't need a visa just a passport, to kick him out is just arresting him and escorting him out of the country or what is called "removal".

    Now the guy doesn't qualify under the terms of the mutual visa-recognition agreement with AU and if he wants to come in in the future he will need to apply for a visa (NIV or IV).

    I guess I didn't understand what was not understood or what the "legalistic" point was supposed to be?

    -Eduardo

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost
    I guess I didn't understand what was not understood or what the "legalistic" point was supposed to be?

    Actually Eduardo, this does have much to do with understanding how the WTS operates!

    Take, for example, their 'explanation' of the Bible passage about the criminal being executed alongside Jesus. Remember how dubs always have difficulty explaining those words of Jesus, "Today I tell you, you will be with me in paradise"? Remember how we taught our bible students how to answer that? You know, it all depends on the comma!!!!!

    The WTS' teachings are full of 'splitting hairs' and isn't that what comes across from the above news report from the US. Is it accidental that the WTS should have originated in the same country?

    Cheers, Ozzie (permanently upside down class)

  • yesidid
    yesidid

    What? your point? and more importantly how does this relate to the theme of this board?

    -Eduardo

    Having a bad day are we Eduardo?

    Never mind Mommy will be here to pick you up soon.

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    So what you are saying Ozzie is that this is more about bashing the U.S. than it is about the WTS?

    Actually while it is true that the Society arose out of American Adventism and of course had the start in Pittsburgh and then trhoughout the NE. The Organization readily and rapidly spread to both the U.K. and yes, even your precious Australia was among the earliest branches. All of this was within a decade or two of formation so really in truth the Organization is not so much U.S. based as it is multi-national.

    -Eduardo

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost
    So what you are saying Ozzie is that this is more about bashing the U.S. than it is about the WTS?

    No, no, no, no! It certainly isn't and if it sounds like it, I apologise.

    However, you could be a tad overly sensitive on this.

    Look, what I was saying was that if you are right about it then it may well be acceptable to follow what the WTS teaches. Yet I suspect (I hope!) that this isn't the case.

    The reasoning between the example given (the news item) seems to me to be wholly like the reasoning the Borg uses, yet I fail to see it.

    More like a Clayton's?

    When the Watchtower reads the account of Thomas they say, Oh well it wasn't really Thomas, it was just Jesus tricking his disciples into believing it was!!!!!!

    Now we have a modern-day example of a government expelling a person and saying, Oh well, it's not really a deportation!!!" Like fun, it isn't!!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit