Associated Press
New York – July 17, The husbands of women forced to abort a pregnancy, undergo involuntary sterilization or face persecution under China’s coercive population control program do not automatically qualify for asylum, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan conflicts with rulings by several other federal appeals courts.
Judge Guido Calabresi called it remarkable that “essentially everyone on this court agrees” that U.S. law does not automatically grant asylum to spouses. He noted the ruling directly conflicts with a dozen other federal appeals courts as well as the findings of the Board of Immigration Appeals and 10 years of rulings in immigration cases.
China’s familyIplanning policy – implementedEin the late 1970s – limitsUmost urban couples toAone child and families inUsome rural areas to twoUto control population growthEand conserve natural resources.E
HumanErights activists complainIthe policy has led toEforced abortions, sterilizationsAand a dangerously imbalancedIsex ratio due toUa traditional preferenceEfor male heirs, which hasIprompted countless familiesIto abort female fetusesIin hopes of getting boys.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 17, 2007 at 5:37 pm
I don’t see any logical reason for this ruling, considering that, unless I’m mistaken, asylum is usually extended to family in other cases. (But then, a husband has no legal bearing in his wife’s reproduction in THIS country, so…)
God bless.
posted July 17, 2007 at 7:21 pm
This article is confusing to me. Has a Chinese woman been granted asylum in N.Y. and not her husband? Why would a husband and wife not be given asylum together? They are in other Federal Appeals Courts in the U.S.A. this article states. Doesn’t seem right to break a family apart. They want more children together, isn’t this what this is about? They can’t in China so they came here for the freedom to do this.
posted July 17, 2007 at 8:46 pm
The article does seem to leave out a lot of details.
Maybe it’s just tossed in as an opportunity to zing China’s program to control their population, which might not be the one chosen in an ideal world but we sure don’t live in an ideal world and without an effective population control program in China, it would be in an awful mess now and the world would be in worse shape than it is. The article somehow leaves that vital fact out, too.
And while I have admiration for the Chinese I don’t want every one who wants to have more children than they can there to be free to come over here and have all the kids they want. That would just make the whole situation worse.
posted July 18, 2007 at 10:17 am
I have a feeling that an intern may have written this article. I know news systems often employ summer interns and you can tell the difference in the writting and production values. So in the interest of helping a student…
The article leaves out many important issues. Who brought the case and what were the one or two (at most) key issues. Why did it get to this level of judicial interest – who is contending and appealing the lower court dicisions? Why is Calbresi taking a stand in opposition to so many other court and agency decisions – what is his history and does it foreshadow such decisions? It may simply be my computer, but I have a whle lot of key strokes in place of punctuation, spacing, and other stuff. Editing is imortant to pieces like this. Never edit your own piece for publication or broadcast. And even then, once it is complete, read it through yourself in its most final form – there are often still problems, unclarity, or plain old mistakes.
posted July 18, 2007 at 11:07 am
Jestrfyl,
I did notice the huge amount of typing mistakes in this piece(not that mine are perfect) and like H22, was somewhat confused with what it was trying to say. Thus, hadn’t commented. Think your idea that it was an intern may be right.