Postscript: Boston and the media fail on asylum seekers

Dead Chechens in a mass grave. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

At the beginning of the week I wrote about how the media was failing in associating asylum seekers, which the Boston bombers' family were, and immigration, which works in a completely different way. This is especially relevant distinction for the media to make because the terrorist attack has been associated with the proposed reform of the American immigration system by those opposed to any reform.

Checking my email I noticed several recent bits of information which underline just how different asylum is to immigration as well as one reason why Chechens would be granted asylum.

Via Ecre:

Chechen refugee threatened with assassination in the UK

British Intelligence Agency MI5 and the UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, are involved in a legal battle to deport a Russian suspect, known as E1, who is allegedly involved in a conspiracy to murder Akhmed Zakayev, the exiled Prime Minister of the unrecognized secessionist government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.

Zakayev is a British-based Chechen separatist who came to the UK in 2002 and received asylum a year later. MI5 issued a warning to the judges stating thatRamzan Kadyrov, the Chechen president, “who had been responsible for the assassination of a number of his opponents, has a blacklist of individuals, some of whom he wished to have assassinated, and […] Akhmed Zakayev, a refugee living in the UK, was believed to be on this list." Kadyrov’s spokesperson denied any allegations.

E1 has been based in the UK since 2003 and was granted indefinite leave to remain. His wife and six children were granted asylum and are now British citizens. The UK Home Secretary wants to deport E1 and labeled him as a “danger to national security”, but despite the public nature of the case and the MI5 warnings, his appeal to remain in the UK was eventually granted.

This case illustrates thefear and insecurity felt by many Chechen refugees living in Europe. A large number of refugees from Chechnya have serious concerns for their personal safety and refer to operations of supporters of Kadyrov, the so-called “Kadyrovtsy”, in Europe. A number of Kadyrov’s political opponents have been killed in Dubai, Istanbul, Moscow, London and Vienna. Moreover, according to the UK Home Office the suspect, E1, is known to have “played a significant role” in the murder of Umar Israilov, who escaped to Poland in 2004 and received asylum in Austria in 2007. Israilov filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2006 and was a key witness of the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) complaint against Kadyrov. In 2008, Israilov noticed that he was being watched and requested protection, which was refused. In 2009 Israilov was shot dead in broad daylight in Vienna.

• ECRE, Guidelines on the Treatment of Chechen IDPs, Asylum seekers and refugees in Europe
• CBAR, Polish asylum procedure and refugee status determination

Via John O:

Removal of Chechen from Austria to Russia would Violate Article 3

In today's Chamber judgment in the case of I.K. v. Austria (application no. 2964/12), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously: that there would be a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if Mr K. was removed to Russia.

The case concerned the complaint by a Russian national of Chechen origin that his removal from Austria to Russia would expose him to the risk of ill-treatment, as his family had been persecuted in Chechnya.

The Court held in particular that there was no indication that Mr K. would be at a lesser risk of persecution upon return to Russia than his mother, who had been granted asylum in Austria, the Austrian courts having found her account convincing. Furthermore, there were recent reports documenting the practice of collective punishment of relatives and suspected supporters of alleged insurgents.

Via Ecre:

CPT: Torture in detention and impunity for perpetrators persist in the North Caucasus

For the first time since 2003, the Russian authorities have authorised the publication of a report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on the findings from its visit to the North-Caucasus region.

The CPT reports grave concerns over the lack of progress made since its first visit to the region over a decade ago. The Committee collected evidence of the use of torture and ill-treatment in detention centres in all three republics visited, Dagestan, Chechnya and North Ossetia-Alania, and of high rates of impunity for perpetrators.

The report concludes that public officials, investigators and judges do not take the necessary action when they are made aware of potential cases of abuse. In the majority of cases, investigations into allegations of torture are dropped after a preliminary enquiry. When criminal proceedings are initiated, the accused is usually charged with lesser offenses than torture, such as abuse of power.

The Committee noted that despite general cooperation on the part of Russian officials, several displayed an attitude of denial, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of instances of torture. Instances were also recorded of intimidation of detainees by authorities, and the provision of inaccurate information.

The CPT has reiterated recommendations including ensuring access to legal and medical care to detainees.

The report, based on a visit in April and May 2011, has been published in tandem with the response of the Russian government.

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, has welcomed Russia’s authorisation of the publication of the report, and expressed hope that this openness will continue.

Related articles

• There Are Almost No Chechens in the United States - Here's Why
• Chechnya And The Tsarnaev Brothers: An Unfair Connection
• GOP weighs in asylum review on immigration bill
• Senate Judiciary Chair Leahy lashes out at those tying immigration and Boston bombings
• Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul urges Reid, McConnell to halt immigration debate after Boston bombing

Breaking: 'Asylum seekers not immigrants' says no one

Jewish refugees from Czechoslovakia being marched away by British police at Croydon airport in March 1939 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Seeking asylum from repression, war and horror is a basic human right which almost every country is signed up to. This right was created in the shadow of World War Two and the then recent shameful memory of the treatment of Jewish refugees before that war.

Asylum seekers are not the same group as 'immigrants'. Neither are they the same group as 'refugees'. People apply to a country to allow them to become immigrants. People are given refugee status in one country, usually next to the country they fled from, and some other countries then select them, usually many years later, to come to them.

Anyone can apply for asylum in another country once they're there, whether by plane or by boat or walking over the border, and they do for all sorts of reasons. People apply because they're being persecuted on account of their ethnicity -- like Chechens. Or their sexuality, or, in one American case, because they cannot home school their children in Germany. Americans have applied for asylum in Canada and, famously, many got it in Scandinavia during the Vietnam War.

There are some basic rules, international law, on asylum seekers but different countries regard them in different ways. In Russia they get sent to a camp in Siberia and in Australia they're all automatically detained. Also in Australia asylum applicants get security checked if they're fleeing, for example, Sri Lanka.

In the United States they get security checked too if they're from certain places. One of those places is the Caucuses -- Chechnya, Dagestan. The Boston bombers were the children of parents originally from Chechnya who were accepted as asylum seekers. They claimed asylum after arriving on tourist visas.

So Senator Rand Paul is either ignorant in calling today for something which is already happening -- security checks -- or willfully stirring slash hot button pressing.

There's more of this and they'll be more to come, from all sides.

Media #fail on asylum seekers ≠ immigration

In the Daily Beast a former Bush official bangs on, like Paul, about double checking 'immigrants' and like this doesn't already happen and, sigh, like this would have made any difference when the bombers were teens when they came to America. In the Boston Herald there's the impolitic version, this full-on anti-immigrant/refugee/whatever rant by Howie Carr.

On Twitter I exchanged with an immigrant advocate, Matthew Kolken, who is countering this nativist ranting by pointing out that one of the guys who helped save the life of the guy who identified the bombers is an immigrant (pictured right, with the big hat).

But if America is now going to have a debate on immigration reform informed by the Boston bombings then it ain't going to be very informed if the media track record thus far keeps up. Because I have now seen a series of stories in major media outlets, including ones making the liberal case, which are confusing asylum and immigration and which contain startling inaccuracies. Startling? Yes, because two seconds thought would have spotted the logical flaws.

Like in this CNN story, or this USA Today one which thinks US cities look at asylum applications, or Weigel at Slate who thinks the US accepts Chechen refugees from Kazakhstan (as does Jason Dzubow, who should know better) which short research disproves or the New York Times which repeats that the family "emigrated to the United States from Kyrgyzstan" ...

Here's The Atlantic getting it right and explaining the bombing suspects status via talking to an expert.

America is not going to un-sign the Refugee Convention, not even the looniest are suggesting that, so will continue to accept asylum applications. Thus, the status of the Boston bombers has sod all to do with immigration reform because asylum seekers ≠ immigration.

Kolken tells me this (ignorance) is normal from journalists, but as with the detailed and extensive criticism over other flaws in the media's coverage of Boston ignorance is no excuse. Basic research, heck, bothering to think it through, would produce better coverage on asylum vs immigration than I am seeing.

One other note. Advocates of immigration reform are blasting -- see this ILW.com editorial 'Terrorist Enablers On The Right' -- those using the bombing and how they are using it. Why don't they point out the complete difference between asylum and immigration?!

Boston: If you read only one thing ...

Boston bombing victim (Photo credit: Ninian Reid)

Something about American sports reporting seems to produce great political writers. I am struggling to think of a British equivalent.

This sprang to mind as I learned that a writer I really like, Charles P. Pierce, who never has bad copy, and who has three must-reads on the Boston bombing as of now, is a sports writer too.

This sweeping arc over the scene yesterday is rooted in his Bostonian longitude:

That is how the news spreads today, when two bombs go off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, and at least three people die and north of 100 are injured, some brutally. The shock is sudden but its ripples fade quickly as the knowledge of what happened goes out into the ether and then back through thousands of personal mobile devices. Horror has no shelf life anymore. Everybody knows already. Everybody's a newsman. Everybody's in showbiz.

First draft reporting at Leica level:

Back by the stone fountain, a woman in a silver blanket told a Providence TV station that she'd been unable to find a ladies' room after the race because all the restaurants and hotels had been locked down and she had to come all the way down to Park Square to find facilities that would deign to accommodate her. She was not happy at all, and she was telling greater Providence about it. "And I needed TO PEE!," she told some undoubtedly astounded Rhode Islanders.

There was something comfortingly mundane in how truly angry she was.

To the idiot parade -- e.g. 'Tingles' -- crowing 'but we know not if it was political!':

The cruel strife between brethren is waged daily by individuals, and by governments. We must recognize that we do not love in excess as easily as we hate in excess. In Boston, in Baghdad, in Mogadishu, all of this is political because we are all political. We are fated to be tied to each other in our politics. We are fated to kill each other for them or not to kill each other for them. It is entirely our choice, and always has been. We must decide not to slaughter each other. Or not. This is also a political choice we make.

For "the folks who dropped by from Glennbeckystanstan":

The sun came up this morning on a garrisoned city. Some people think one thing about that, and some people think another. But too many people think something completely insane, and that scares the hell out of me. In our politics, we must we must look the real monster in the eye, and not create phantoms because they are more easily killed. We have lost faith in that in which we cannot lose faith and survive. As investigators crawl over Copley Square, they might as well be looking for the democratic soul of a nation gone a bit mad.

I started reading Pierce (at Esquire of all places) during the election. Perhaps you can tell why.

Olbermann is an obvious companion great communicator to Pierce but, heck, even Bob Costas has better expressed political thoughts that any UK comparison crossing my mind. I wonder why that is?