The June 26 front-page article “Migrants must enter into U.S. for asylum” quoted Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s warning that Mullin v. Al Otro Lado will push more people to cross the border illegally. She is right about the danger. But if the government may block asylum seekers at ports of entry before they are deemed to have arrived in the United States, many will be forced toward the very crossings the government then condemns.
U.S. Code Section 1325 makes entry outside a designated place or manner a criminal offense. But asylum law adds a crucial limit that the word “illegal” obscures: Federal law allows a person to apply for asylum once present in the U.S. “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.”
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which the U.S. is committed to, bars penalizing refugees who flee danger, enter without authorization and come forward without delay. People fleeing persecution often cannot wait politely at a locked door. When the government blocks the door and then prosecutes those who seek another way to ask for safety, it turns the manner of entry into the very penalty refugee law was written to prevent. Calling that crossing “illegal” assumes away the harder question, which is whether the U.S. may punish a person for doing what asylum law requires: reaching U.S. soil to seek protection.
There is no illegal way to ask for asylum, even if the court has made that right harder to exercise.
Natasha Arnpriester, New York
The writer is senior legal counsel at the Open Society Justice Initiative.
The Supreme Court held that the U.S. asylum statute provides that aliens must be physically present in the United States before they are eligible to apply for asylum. I agree that this is a correct interpretation of the statute. It is interesting to note, though, that this same statute provides that aliens are eligible to apply for asylum even if they cross the border illegally.
Since our asylum statute permits aliens to apply after entering the country illegally, these asylum seekers should not be thought of as criminals and, hopefully, going forward this will be understood by the public, the administration and the courts.
John Maney Jr., Springfield
The court protected sports
The July 1 news article “Justices uphold bans on trans women in female sports” said that “science concerning biological advantages of transgender girls and women in sports is evolving and remains hotly debated.” Public policy is debated; biology is not. And the male athletic advantage is clear.
The physiological differences between males and females have been documented across decades of scientific research and are reflected in every level of athletic competition, from youth sports to the Olympics. Males, on average, are bigger, faster, stronger and more powerful than females, giving them measurable performance advantages across virtually every athletic category. Those differences are the very reason women’s sports exist and why Title IX has been so successful in expanding opportunities for women and girls.
The debate has never been whether males possess athletic advantages over females. The debate is whether the law may continue to recognize those differences when protecting women’s sports. The Supreme Court answered yes to that question.
Beth Parlato, Washington
The writer is senior legal counsel for Independent Women’s Law Center.
Don’t serve foie gras
In Bart Hutchins’s June 16 op-ed, “Why I’m proud to serve foie gras,” he purported to “understand completely” why people react with horror when confronted with images of ducks having pipes rammed down their throats. He also said: “If you imagine the same thing done to human beings, it looks like violence.” That’s because it is.
Great cooking should celebrate skill, creativity and respect for ingredients — not the deliberate suffering of animals. To produce foie gras, workers repeatedly force-feed ducks and geese by shoving tubes down their throats and pumping large quantities of food directly into their stomachs until their livers become diseased and grossly enlarged. Investigations at foie gras farms have documented birds with throat injuries, infections, breathing difficulties and other serious health problems.
No dish is worth this level of cruelty. Chefs around the world proudly serve exceptional cuisine without foie gras, proving that compassion and culinary excellence belong on the same plate.
About 20 countries have banned force-feeding birds for foie gras because they recognize the practice as inherently wrong. Washington now has an opportunity to join this growing movement by supporting Initiative 86 and, ultimately, ending the sale of foie gras in the District.
Ducks feel pain and fear, just as humans do — and there’s no excuse for the immense suffering they endure to produce foie gras. If chefs are incapable of putting together menus that don’t come at the expense of tormented animals, perhaps they should go back to culinary school.
Leah Curran Moon and Michael Jantz Moon, Washington
The writers are chefs and co-founders of DC Vegan.
Yes, hire goats
Regarding the June 28 editorial “Ohio can hire goats if it wants to”:
I applaud the Editorial Board’s conjecture that finding the most cost-effective method for the Columbus city government to solve a problem requiring labor is optimal and does not violate labor union rights. Using goats to remove invasive weeds is a cheap and safe method for clearing the field for a wastewater treatment plant.
Animals have long been employed successfully to assist in human tasks. And animal rights activists have to admit that munching on a smorgasbord of invasive plants is not an unpleasurable experience for goats.
Taxpayers provide the revenue for government endeavors, and reducing government spending should please the boss: the electorate.
Gail B. Landy, Gaithersburg
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post What the Supreme Court got wrong about asylum law appeared first on Washington Post.
