Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iranian Immigration

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    uk

    Uk is not as good as I thought

    Comment


    • #47
      IRAN 4 EVA

      Comment


      • #48
        Immigrants; Who Cares?
        If illegal aliens paid taxes, even more than citizens, would we care that they are here? If we could effectively screen the drug smugglers and potential terrorists, and immigrants paid proportionately more taxes than the services they consume, the only objection to their presence would be bigotry or xenophobia. So I’m sure there’d be few complaints.

        I support the proposals for abolishing the 16th amendment, and eliminating all income and payroll taxes in favor of a system of consumption taxes. The "fair tax," most actively advocated by Americans for Fair Taxation, would reorder many economic incentives and would serve to level the playing field in international trade. But the implications for immigration policy might dramatically transform that public debate.

        Under a consumption-based tax system everyone who shops pays taxes. Illegal aliens shop. They buy groceries, gasoline, and fast food. One of the criticisms of a consumption tax is that it tends to be regressive by taxing more heavily the lower income individuals who must spend more of their income on necessities. The "fair tax" proposal would provide rebates to Americans to offset the taxes paid on subsistence level purchases. Illegal aliens would not be eligible for that rebate.

        Therefore, an illegal alien would be taxed at a significantly higher rate than a citizen. Their incentive would be to become legal or leave. A rational American might even welcome more illegal aliens - they pay higher taxes than the services they can legally access.

        I think the most compelling reasons for the fair tax are the ways it creates a more level footing for American products versus imports, and the way it would create incentive for savings rather than debt. The way a fair tax might defuse the current immigration debate is just a bonus.

        Michael Smith, Republican Candidate for President



        Comment


        • #49
          Former detainee gets compo for human rights breach

          An Iranian woman who was detained for three months with her daughter and a large group of single men at the Curtin Immigration Detention Centre in Western Australia will receive compensation.

          An investigation by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HEROC) recommended the payment, after finding the action was culturally insensitive and breached human rights.

          The Immigration Minister says her department will pay $10,000 in compensation.

          Senator Amanda Vanstone says allegations of assault were referred to the police.

          They were investigated but no further action was taken.

          Senator Vanstone has told the Senate her department regrets the incident and a letter of apology has been sent to the woman.

          "I don't welcome compensation because it's an indication a mistake's been made, but I welcome it in the sense that when it ought to be paid, it ought to be paid and it ought to be paid as promptly and efficiently and fairly as it possibly can be," she said.

          Senator Vanstone also expects a compensation agreement with wrongly detained Australian resident Cornelia Rau to be finalised shortly.



          Comment


          • #50
            The hallowed halls of Stormont rang yesterday with mature, intelligent, calm, reasoned debate. And then the politicians arrived.

            The debate had, in fact, been produced by 80 students from 25 schools, each representing a country, who had gathered for a mock EU Council debate.
            The British Council had turned the Long Gallery at Parliament into Brussels for the day, although thankfully without Mannekin Pis.
            And fortunately for the council's bank balance, the students' impersonation of Eurocrats had not extended to arriving in limousines, private jets and helicopters, then charging £500-a-mile expenses.
            Neither, thankfully, were they speaking the language of their choice, since my Latvian's always a bit rusty first thing in the morning.
            By 10.30, photocall on the steps over, all was ready for the great debate but for one small crisis: there was no sign of Austria, aka Drumragh Integrated College in Omagh.
            Various rumours swept the building: they had gone to Innsbruck for acclimatisation, were learning to yodel in German at a secret training camp high in the Alps, or perfecting their parallel turns at the artificial ski slope in Craigavon.
            While we waited and speculated, Pat Cox, the erudite Dublin-born former President of the European Parliament, gave us all an insight into the history and workings of the European Union.
            "We are not a United States of Europe; we are a Europe of united states. From the original six nations in the fifties, over the next few years we will see, from the western seaboard of Ireland to the Turkish-Iranian border, a unique body joined not by force, but by peaceful means,'' he said as the Austria delegation finally arrived, and only just managed to find seats.
            "You see, the Community is expanding so fast that finding room for everyone is becoming a problem,'' said Pat.
            "As the EU Council, you have to find solutions for the many blues facing ordinary Europeans: jobs being relocated to other countries, global warming, an increasingly elderly population, terrorism and immigration."
            And so to business, with the first debate, on whether the EU should expand without waiting for reforms in the Balkans and Turkey.
            Denmark wanted to save its own bacon, and thought that only countries whose borders were threatened by immigration should pay more taxes to cope with the cost of enlargement. Italy said it had enough trouble dealing with immigrants from Africa as it was, and Slovakia was worried that countries like Romania and Bulgaria would suffer the same sort of brain drain as the countries which joined in 2004.
            Greece thought it was unfair for richer countries to pay for poorer ones to join, and Slovakia said it would be better to stablise the economies of existing EU countries before enlarging any further.
            The very articulate Cyprus team said that in spite of the huge amount of money and help which had been poured into Kosovo, it was still so unstable it couldn't even organise a census, never mind free trade and handing over war criminals.
            This led to a lengthy discussion on whether Croatia should get in, with a murky past and shady characters still lurking in the darkened alleys of Zagreb, and two votes.
            The first was on the proposal that this was not an appropriate time for further enlargement without reform, and the second was that Croatia should be fast-tracked for full membership.
            As the votes were counted, the debate moved on to whether European studies should be taught on schools, and if so, whether they should be a whole subject or a module for alternate Wednesday afternoons if rugby was rained off.
            As Italy said, something should be done to dispel the myth that the EU was a gravy train filled with identical bananas. As it were.
            Since 98 per cent of EU households had a TV, Latvia had the bright idea of a series on the subject: David Attenborough's Secret Life of the Eurocrat, that sort of thing.
            After a lunch of that traditional pan-European dish, chicken kebabs, it was time for the last discussion, on the environment and sustainable development.
            At this point, Germany came close to starting World War Three by suggesting France's only contribution to the environment was dumping radioactive waste in the sea and blowing up Greenpeace boats.
            The German delegation almost certainly returned to their Mercedes later to find all the tyres let down and a man cycling off, a beret on his head and a string of onions draped over his striped shirt.
            Hungary wanted to go nuclear, although with their national cuisine, lard-burning power stations might be a better option, and Portugal was all for hydrogen power and manure-powered cars, which could lead to every Trabant factory in East Germany reopening, not to mention all the cows in the rest of Europe having to get their asses in gear.
            And so to the votes: 13 voted against further enlargement, with 12 against. A similar margin said yes to Croatian membership, and 19 voted for a plan for the removal of nuclear energy from the EU, with six against.
            So that was it. Europe was staying put apart from Croatia, nuclear power stations were stuffed, manure was the way forward and the only question remaining was what had happened to the Austrian delegation of Herrs Lloyd Breen and Daniel McCrory and Fraulein Caoimhe McGrath.
            "Er, we got lost. We ended up at the Territorial Army camp on the Holywood Road," they said.



            Comment


            • #51
              Yadegary: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

              The case of Thomas Yadegary, an asylum seeker who has been detained in Auckland Central Remand Prison since November 2004, is a good illustration of just how murky and complex the realm of asylum policy is. As such, there are rarely straightforward solutions to the difficulties that asylum seekers present to the nation they arrive in. There are, however, compromises that are more tolerable than others. By attempting to deport Yadegary and by keeping him in penal detention until this is arranged, the New Zealand government has settled upon a most unpalatable response.

              Yadegary arrived in New Zealand from Iran in October 1993 to claim refugee status on political grounds. This claim was unsuccessful and an appeal was rejected in 1997. In the same year, Yadegary converted to Christianity and reapplied for refugee status, this time on religious grounds. By renouncing his Muslim faith, Yadegary had transgressed the sharia, the traditional Islamic law that guides Iranian jurisprudence. The conversion from Islam to another religion, according to the sharia, is an offence punishable by death.

              The legal bodies that determine refugee status in New Zealand – the Refugee Status Branch and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority – ruled that Yadegary’s commitment to the Christian faith was genuine. They also ruled that the conversion from Islam to Christianity was indeed a capital offence in Iran. Yet, New Zealand has adopted the conclusions of a 1995 investigation by the Swedish Aliens Appeal Board in which it is claimed that the law in question is never practically implemented.

              Iranian Christians, it argues, live and practise their religion with no significant interference by the authorities. The only individuals under any threat are those involved in evangelizing or proselytizing; and, even then, the danger comes from vigilante acts carried out by fundamentalists and radicals, not state persecution. Consequently, it was deemed that Yadegary is under no serious risk if he is returned home and, therefore, he is ineligible for refugee status.

              Even if one assumes the situation has not changed in the eleven years since the Swedish Aliens Appeal Board’s investigation (and some organizations, such as the Barnabas Fund and the United States State Department, do claim that state persecution of Christians occurs in Iran), this is a tenuous conclusion.

              The possibility of being executed for one’s religious beliefs – however remote – is a powerful constraint on the expression of one’s religious freedom, a restriction that no liberal community would ever consider acceptable. Furthermore, the law’s very existence, even if not adopted by the state as active policy, gives a certain measure of legitimacy to acts of persecution carried out in an unofficial capacity.

              Indeed, if it were in the Iranian state’s interests to discourage the spread of Christianity amongst its population (which it arguably is), it might simply turn a blind eye to those who take the law into their own hands and thereby surreptitiously pursue a policy that, if actively enforced, would receive international condemnation.

              In this atmosphere of latent hostility, even the threat of denunciation becomes an effective tool of exploitation or revenge for a spiteful official, an envious neighbour, or a grudge-bearing in-law. The fear of punishment, however unlikely, would never be far from any covert Christian’s mind. And, as a Christian living in Iran, one would be perpetually anxious that the government’s stance was about to shift towards further intolerance.

              An influx of conservatives, or the ascendancy of one politically powerful hard-liner, could quickly result in the law being put into action. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees states that a refugee is someone outside their home territory due to a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion...’ Drafted in the wake of the Holocaust, its writers keenly aware of the international community’s failure to assist Jewish refugees, the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention recognizes the right of a refugee to flee under the threat of persecution: a ‘well-founded fear’.

              It acknowledges that people must be able to escape a tyranny before the hammer comes down – the possibility of asylum is of little use to the dead. The existence of a law that prescribes the death penalty for a person’s religious beliefs, it can be argued, is enough to justify a ‘well-founded fear’ of being persecuted.

              However, New Zealand’s legal bodies have chosen not to interpret the situation in this way. They have rejected his claim of refugee status which means that Yadegary, lacking any other sort of permit, is in New Zealand illegally. So, the government wants him expelled. It wants him expelled to demonstrate its bureaucratic efficacy and its will to regulate immigration, to prove to a suspicious electorate that it is not a soft touch, and to discourage other would-be asylum seekers from trying their luck.



              Comment


              • #52
                SIDEBAR: How Britain Learned to Hate Itself

                If somehow a group of Britons from 100 years ago were brought to life and turned loose on the streets of modern London, they would barely recognize the place.

                The Britain of their day bursted with imperial pride—a sense that the empire was a gift to the world. Over the three centuries Britain built and sustained its globe-straddling kingdom, its extensive contact with all manner of foreign cultures was governed by a sense of duty, of mission. The British sought to strengthen the peoples of other races, religions and creeds with a specific, potent instrument: the civilizing influence of Britishness. Their various dealings with these far-flung peoples made the world—even to this day—a fundamentally different place.

                The Britain of today is transformed in many ways because of one core truth: The former imperial pride is demolished, replaced by outright embarrassment and hostility for what the British Empire once embodied. Britain’s once stout heart is utterly feeble, with poisons of doubt and self-loathing coursing through its chambers.

                The effect of this change on the nation’s defenses cannot be overstated.

                The first hints of the sickness began after World War II, when a victorious Britain surveyed the scene and comprehended how many of its men now lay buried in the battlegrounds of Europe. It could have lost that war. This sinking sense of the nation’s mortality became far gloomier a decade later when, in 1956, Britain was forced to back down from a confrontation with Egypt over the Suez—a stark humiliation that shook the very notion of imperialism to its foundations, and also left British culture vulnerable to the savage forces of liberalism that stormed the Western world during the 1960s.

                In the 13 years following the Suez crisis, intellectual retreat from imperialism was reflected in a territorial retreat: Britain granted independence to nearly all of its remaining colonies in Africa, the Far East and the West Indies. Military spending plummeted. Meanwhile, however, the British standard of living actually rose, and the general public turned inward, apparently unconcerned with the loss of empire.

                Britain’s sense of national purpose and identity—including ideals and virtues long held in esteem and broadly aspired to—was replaced by a culture of self-love and moral relativism. “O England! …” wrote Shakespeare in Henry V, “What mightst thou do, that honor would thee do, / Were all thy children kind and natural! / But see thy fault! France hath in thee found out a nest of hollow bosoms ….” Young people grew up without a moral anchor, stripped of nobility. Permissiveness and secularism flourished; tradition and faith languished.

                This transformation “encompassed a radical assault on traditional values and attitudes, many of which were closely associated with the empire and those who had made and ruled it. If their ideals were bogus, then perhaps the institution itself was rotten throughout” (Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire). All that Britain once was came to be regarded with shame.

                The only way to reclaim legitimacy, it was believed, was to squash all things national in favor of the international, the multicultural. Before long, the nation was caught up in a long and hiccupy flirtation with the Continent, a slow-motion entanglement that would gradually erode its national sovereignty. It also permitted, beginning in the 1960s, an unprecedented level of immigration, which served to further dilute whatever cultural cohesion the nation had retained.

                With the nation’s immunity thus weakened morally and culturally, evils began to penetrate and take root in the national body.

                In the 1970s, particularly large masses of immigrants swarmed to England’s shores from Third World countries that were becoming radicalized at the time. Among them slipped handfuls of Islamist activists who began infecting otherwise peaceful Muslims with hateful, violent ideas. Stoking passion for their cause were such watershed events as the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the Islamic victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan—events that, in the mind of Muslims, offered proof that their religion was destined to rule the world.

                British officials dumbly stood by and let this sickness spread unchecked. They ignored open expressions of activism and clear incitement to violent acts. In fact, the dogma of political correctness had so infected the nation that, thanks to its exceedingly liberal asylum laws, even individuals who had been exiled from other nations for being too radical were welcomed into Britain. An Algerian journalist who tracked the story called the UK “the only country that gave asylum and didn’t ask a lot of questions.”

                In defiance of all common sense, British courts embraced the European Convention on Human Rights, which by the 1990s had come to ban the deportation of illegal immigrants—even suspected terrorists—to anywhere they might face torture or abuse. “[I]f such immigrants turned out to be themselves harmful to Britain, they could not be thrown out if they claimed that they faced further harm where they were being sent—which many promptly did. … Thus a Taliban soldier who fought the British and Americans in Afghanistan was granted asylum because he said he feared persecution—from the Western-backed government in Kabul” (Melanie Phillips, Londonistan).

                This goes beyond Britain unwittingly allowing sickness to develop. It is self-sabotage—state suicide. Had Britain remained a vibrant, upright nation, confident in its identity and role in the world—not to mention resistant to what forces might threaten that position—it would have been more vigilant to expunge evil from its midst. And its immigrants would have had far more to identify with and take pride in within the nation they had chosen to make their home.



                Comment


                • #53
                  interesting to see how many people think its best for iranians to immigrate to the USA, when its getting much harder for us, just cause u are living now in the US and were able to land there, doesn't mean its currently that simple to do so, i have seen scandinavian countries and canada being so far the most lenient towards persian immigrants, but the more time goes by the more difficult it gets internationally, unless u are an iranian living outside of iran with a foreign passport and want to move to a western country, it all depends on your status. the application process is surely exhausting, the things they ask you, not even you won't always know

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Iranian Men in Beverly Hills Arrested for Violating Embargo Against Iran

                    by Jim Kouri - BEVERLY HILLS -- Two Iranian men have been arrested on federal charges of violating the US embargo against Iran in 2005, according to a statement released by US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor


                    Babak Maleki, 28, of Los Angeles, California, and Shahram Setudeh Nejad, 53, of Newport Beach, California, were arrested and presented on October 5, 2006, before a federal judge in California.

                    Following their removal hearing on October 12, 2006, the two defendants were ordered to appear in US District Court for the District of Columbia on November 2, 2006, for their arraignment before the Judge John D. Bates.

                    The men have been charged in a previously sealed two-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia with conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), and the Iranian Transactions Regulations (“ITR”), and making an unlawful export in violation of IEEPA and the ITR. Also charged in the indictment is Mojtada Maleki-Gomi, 57, of Los Angeles, California. Maleki-Gomi is currently in Iran.

                    According to the indictment, Babak Maleki and Mojtada Maleki-Gomi did business as M&M Investment Co... (“M&M”) of Beverly Hills, California. M&M sold and exported textile machinery and other commodities. Nejad worked for M&M in coordinating and facilitating exports and sales.

                    In or around July 2005, a cooperating source for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) made an inquiry to M&M in response to an advertisement on a website that Babak Maleki had posted seeking to sell a type of textile machinery known as Knitde- Knit (“KDK”) equipment. Nejad responded to the inquiry and, after learning that the cooperating source and an undercover agent wanted to ship the textile machinery to Iran, he put the government agents in contact with Mojtada Maleki-Gomi.

                    Maleki-Gomi explained to the undercover agent how he was able to evade the US embargo against Iran by shipping commodities to Iran through Dubai, United Arab Emirates. During the fall of 2005, Nejad and Maleki-Gomi worked on the logistics of sending a container of 30 KDK machines to Iran through Dubai.

                    On December 7, 2005, the container with the KDK machinery that M&M had sold to the undercover agent left the United States for Dubai. A short time later, US Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) recalled the container and detained it.

                    Over the next several months, Nejad and Babak had phone conversations and meetings with representatives of CBP attempting to get the container released. During those contacts, they made false representations about the identity of the purchaser of the KDK machinery and the ultimate destination of the equipment.



                    Comment


                    • #55
                      شورای اروپا در تاریخ 29 آوریل 2004 موازینی را با هدف یکدست کردن قوانین پناهندگی در کشورهای عضو اتحادیه اروپا به تصویب رساند. موازینی که حداقل های مندرج در کنوانسیون ژنو در آن رعایت شده باشد. از آنزمان به دولتهای عضو اتحادیه اروپا تا 10 اکتبر 2006 مهلت داده شده بود تا با در نظر گرفتن این موازین، تغییرات لازم را در قوانین خود وارد کنند. اگر چه این مهلت به پایان رسید اما پارلمان و دولت آلمان تغییرات باقی مانده را مورد بررسی قرار ندادند. با این وجود رعایت و در نظر گرفتن آن برای آلمان الزام آور خواهد بود. در آلمان و در جریان مباحث وتنظیم وتصویب قانون جدید اقامت که از اول ژانویه 2005 به اجرا گذشته شد، برخی از این تغییرات وارد شده و بطور مشخص در ارتباط با دلایل اخص جنسیتی، در ماده 60 بند1 بر این مسئله تأکید نمود. اما تغییرات دیگری تا 10 اکتبر 2006 اضافه نشد. حال این سوال مطرح است که بسر رسیدن این مهلت، چه الزامی را برای ادارات پناهندگی و دادگاههائی که به امور پناهندگان رسیدگی می کنند با خود به همراه میاورد و تا آنجا که به پناهجویان ایرانی بر می گردد کدام دسته از پناهجویان را بیشتر شامل می شود؟

                      تأثیر لازم الاجرا شدن این موازین بر وضعیت اقلیتهای مذهبی ایرانی، بویژه آندسته از مسلمان زاده هائی که به مسحیت گرویده اند
                      دسته ای از متقاضیان پناهندگی ایرانی را در آلمان ( همچون دیگر کشورهای غربی)، پناهجویانی تشکیل میدهند که هنگام ورود ، دلیل پناهندگی خود را مشکلات و خطرات ناشی از تغییر مذهب در ایران اعلام کرده و یا دسته دیگری در مرحله درخواست مجدد
                      ( Asylfolgeantrag) چنین دلیلی را تازه عنوان کرده و یا عنوان می کنند. در بررسی درخواست این پناهجویان ، تنها درخواست درصد کمی ازآنها مورد قبول قرار می گرفت ولی از پذیرش درخواست اکثریت آنها خود داری می شد.

                      دلایل ردی اداره فدرال برای پناهندگی و یا دادگاههای پناهندگی در این زمینه را می توان در سه مورد زیر دسته بندی کرد:

                      - یک دلیل ردی عنوان شده خطاب به متقاضی نام برده این بود که: تغییر مذهب شما را باور نمی کنیم و شما این کار را فقط بخا طر حل مسئله اقامت خود انجام داده اید.
                      - دلیل دیگر این بود که: قبول داریم که تغییر مذهب شما قلبی و از روی ایمان است، اما شما کار و فعالیت تبلیغی و مسیونری کافی که باعث شناخته شدگی شما شده باشد نداشته اید. فعالیت شما در حدی نبوده است که بشود ادعا کرد که درنتیجه آن شما از طرف جمهوری اسلامی و دستگاههای امنیتی آن مورد شناسائی قرار گرفته باشید. بنا براین دلیلی برای در خطر بودن جان شما در صورت اخراج به ایران نیز وجود ندارد.
                      - دلیل سوم که بویژه با استناد به مصوبه دادگاه های عالی امور اداری ذی صلاح در امور پناهندگی عنوان می شد این بود که: قبول داریم که در ایران اقلیتهای مذهبی زیر فشارهستند و قبول داریم که این فشارها آزادی مذهبی شما را در صورت اخراج به ایران بسیار محدود خواهد کرد، اما آنقدر نیست که بشود گفت که حد اقل های ازادی مذهبی در ایران وجود ندارد. در تفسیر " حد اقل های آزادی مذهبی" نیز گفته می شد، همینکه شما بتوانید در چهاردیواری خانه خود دعا کرده و آئین مذهبی تان را اجرا کنید کافی است و حتما نباید این مسئله جنبه علنی و بیرونی داشنه باشد. به این ترتیب و با این تفسیرو استدلال، در خلوت خانه خود و با عقیده خود زندگی ، کردن برابر بود با تضمین دار بودن حداقل های آزادی مذهبی!!
                      این تفسیر در سالیا ن گذشته از سوی سازمانهای حقوق بشری و مدافع پناهنگی مورد انتقاد قرار داشت، اما از آنجا که برخی از بالاترین دادگاههای اداری ( Oberverwaltungsgericht ) چنین حکمی را صادر کرده بودند، دادگاههای پائین تر
                      ( Verwaltungsgericht ) به راحتی وتنها با اسنتاد با این احکام، درخواست های پناهندگی افرادی که تغییر مذهب داده بودند را رد می کردند.

                      اصل " تضمین حد اقل آزادی های مذهبی"
                      موازین اروپائی در رابطه با امور پناهندگی، تفسیر دیگری از اصل " تضمین حد اقل آزادی های مذهبی" ارائه داده و از جمله بر این مسئله تأکید دارد که در مورد اقلیتهای مذهبی باید این دسته از افراد آزاد باشند و بتوانند در بیرون از چهار دیواری خانه خودشان نیز عقیده شان را ابراز و بیان کرده و یا بتوانند آزادانه در اماکن مذهبی خود مراسم مذهبی شان را اجرا کرده و یا به این اماکن رفت و آمد داشته باشند.

                      امکان ارئه درخواست مجدد (Asylfolgeantrag)
                      اکنون این امکان وجود دارد تا آندسته از افرادی که جزء اقلیتهای مذهبی شمرده شده و یا تغییر مذهب داده اند و در مراحل قبلی درخواستشان ردشده بوده است، پرونده خود را به جریان انداخته و یک درخواست مجدد ارائه دهند. باید توجه داشت یکی از شرایط ارائه درخواست مجدد در این مورد، رعایت مهلت سه ماهه است. یعنی تنها سه ماه مهلت وجود دارد تا این دسته از افراد در خواست خود را ارائه دهند. توصیه می شود که برای درخواست مجدد و تنظیم آن حتما از طریق و کیل اقدام شود. در مورد آندسته از افراد که بیش از شش سال است که در آلمان بوده و دولدونگ دارند نیز توصیه می شود قبل از هر اقدامی منتظر نتیجه اجلاس وزرای داخله ایالتهای آلمان که در 16 و 17 نوامبر تشکیل می شود، باقی بمانند و با مشورت با وکیل خود حالتهای مختلفی که شاملشان می شود را بررسی کرده و آنگاه تصممیم مناسب را اتخاذ کنند.

                      مطالب مرتبط در سایت انتگراسیون:
                      سرکوب آزادیهای مذهبی نشان دیگری از نقض مستمر حقوق بشر در ایران اصا لت با چیست، مذهب شناسنامه ای یا انتخاب آزادانه عقیده ومرام؟
                      http://www.if-id.de/ifidsite/roots/D...zhab_hanif.php





                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Hosseini Freed From Detention

                        Masoud Hosseini became a free man. Hosseini had spent four years behind bars as an immigration detainee -- most recently, in Georgia's Colquitt County Jail -- based on terrorism allegations but without facing any criminal charges.

                        Over the telephone on Oct. 16, Hosseini described "giv[ing] all his stuff away" to fellow jail mates before being bussed to the Greyhound station in Tallahasee carrying sacks full of documents related to his case conspicuously stamped by the detention facility. His first purchase outside of jail was a large bag to carry them in.

                        "Anything for me was fun," he said of his first few hours on the outside. "Just going down the street, looking at the people, the new cars.

                        "I couldn't believe it," he said. That night, at a hotel, "I couldn't sleep. I kept thinking, if I want to, I can really walk out of this room?"

                        Disappeared in America reported on Hosseini's case in an article published three days prior to his release: The Department of Homeland Security had accused Hosseini of having ties to the Iranian dissident group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which the US designated as a terrorist organization in 1997. But it held him in immigration detention and refused to allow him a bail hearing as his visa case made its way through numerous immigration appeals.

                        On Sept. 28, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals found that Hosseini "is more likely than not to be tortured" if he were deported to his native Iran. It granted Hosseini protection under the Convention Against Torture, and barred the government from deporting Hosseini until such a time that he would no longer be at risk.

                        It's unclear why the government opted to release Hosseini at this time after insisting on keeping him behind bars for so long, arguing he presented a danger. The Ninth Circuit remanded Hosseini's case to a lower immigration appeals board, instructing it to re-examine whether the government's evidence supports the conclusion that Hosseini poses a threat to national security.

                        Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not return our calls by press time. Hosseini's attorney, Matt Adams of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, told us the government failed to tell him they were letting his client go.

                        Now Hosseini reports he's under supervised release, which requires him to report to the immigration authorities on a regular basis until authorities determine his legal status in the country.

                        He's got a lot of time to make up for.

                        "I'm four years behind," said Hosseini from North Carolina, where his brother and sister live. "But I'm so happy to be free."



                        Comment


                        • #57
                          IRAN - DON'T FINGERPRINT AMERICANS

                          Iran's fiercely anti-U.S. president has come out against a bill that would require Americans to be fingerprinted on arrival in Iran. Speaking to a crowd in the northern Tehran suburb of Shemiranat, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he had asked Iranian legislators to set aside a bill that would require immigration officials to take fingerprints of all U.S. passport holders.


                          TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's fiercely anti-U.S. president has come out against a bill that would require Americans to be fingerprinted on arrival in Iran.

                          Speaking to a crowd in the northern Tehran suburb of Shemiranat, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he had asked Iranian legislators to set aside a bill that would require immigration officials to take fingerprints of all U.S. passport holders.

                          "We do not have a problem with American people. We oppose only the U.S. government's bullying and arrogance," Ahmadinejad said Monday night, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

                          The bill, which passed a preliminary reading in the Iranian parliament earlier this month, was drafted by conservatives who sought to retaliate for the U.S. requirement that Iranian visitors be fingerprinted.



                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Iranian immigration detainee featured in "Disappeared in America" released

                            SAN FRANCISCO--On Friday, Oct. 13, Masoud Hosseini became a free man. Hosseini had spent four years behind bars as an immigration detainee -- most recently, in Florida's Colquitt County Jail -- based on terrorism allegations but without facing any criminal charges.

                            Over the telephone on Oct. 16, Hosseini described "giv[ing] all his stuff away" to fellow jail mates before being bussed to the Greyhound station in Tallahasee carrying sacks full of documents related to his case conspicuously stamped by the detention facility. His first purchase outside of jail was a large bag to carry them in.
                            "Anything for me was fun," he said of his first few hours on the outside. "Just going down the street, looking at the people, the new cars.

                            "I couldn't believe it," he said. That night, at a hotel, "I couldn't sleep. I kept thinking, if I want to, I can really walk out of this room?"

                            Disappeared in America reported on Hosseini's case in an article published three days prior to his release: The Department of Homeland Security had accused Hosseini of having ties to the Iranian dissident group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which the US designated as a terrorist organization in 1997. But it held him in immigration detention and refused to allow him a bail hearing as his visa case made its way through numerous immigration appeals.

                            On Sept. 28, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals found that Hosseini "is more likely than not to be tortured" if he were deported to his native Iran. It granted Hosseini protection under the Convention Against Torture, and barred the government from deporting Hosseini until such a time that he would no longer be at risk.

                            It's unclear why the government opted to release Hosseini at this time after insisting on keeping him behind bars for so long, arguing he presented a danger. The Ninth Circuit remanded Hosseini's case to a lower immigration appeals board, instructing it to re-examine whether the government's evidence supports the conclusion that Hosseini poses a threat to national security.

                            Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not return our calls by press time. Hosseini's attorney, Matt Adams of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, told us the government failed to tell him they were letting his client go.

                            Now Hosseini reports he's under supervised release, which requires him to report to the immigration authorities on a regular basis until authorities determine his legal status in the country.

                            He's got a lot of time to make up for.

                            "I'm four years behind," said Hosseini from North Carolina, where his brother and sister live. "But I'm so happy to be free."



                            Comment


                            • #59
                              عضو هيأت رئيسه كميسيون امنيت ملي و سياست خارجي با اشاره به درخواست رئيس*جمهوري مبني بر خارج كردن طرح انگشت*نگاري از اتباع آمريكايي* از دستور كار مجلس، گفت: البته ما شاهد وضعيت نامطلوبي در خصوص اتباع ايراني در محل*هاي ورودي ايالات متحده آمريكا* براي حضور در اين كشور هستيم و بايد به نوعي جلوي اين وضعيت نامطلوب را گرفت.

                              كاظم جلالي با بيان اين*كه اين طرح از ابتدا با حضور مسئولان وزارت خارجه مورد بررسي قرار گرفت، گفت: طرح انگشت*نگاري از اتباع آمريكايي بايد در روز چهارشنبه پيش از تعطيلات مجلس در دستور كار قرار مي*گرفت، در همان روز نيز متكي، وزير امور خارجه با حضور در مجلس اعلام كرد كه دولت با اين طرح مخالف است و دلايل مخالفت همين نكات رئيس*جمهور در سخنان اخير خود بود.

                              وي ادامه داد: در آن روز نوبت مطرح شدن آن طرح در مجلس نرسيد و بررسي طرح مربوط به مد و لباس طولاني شد و پس از آن نيز سؤال يكي از نمايندگان مطرح شد، البته اين طرح هنوز در دستور كار مجلس قرار دارد و اين*كه چگونه از دستور كار مجلس خارج شود، نيازمند يك راه آئين*نامه*اي است.

                              جلالي خاطرنشان كرد: يك راه اين است كه طرح در مجلس مطرح شود و دولت نظر خود را مطرح كند و تصويب اين طرح منوط به آراي نمايندگان قرار بگيرد، راه ديگر بازگرداندن طرح است كه بايد راهكار آئين*نامه*اي آن پيدا شود.

                              مخبر كميسيون امنيت ملي و سياست خارجي مجلس ادامه داد: البته مي*توان اين طرح را اصلاح كرد و انگشت*نگاري منحصر به عناصر نامطلوب آمريكايي شود. چون همان*طور كه رئيس*جمهور اشاره كرده، ما به هر كسي كه ويزا بدهيم بايد آداب مهمان*نوازي آن را رعايت كنند.

                              جلالي با بيان اين*كه طرح،* اين هفته در مجلس و كميسيون امنيت ملي مورد بررسي قرار مي*گيرد تا به جمع*بندي برسيم، اظهار داشت: ملت ايران، ملت بزرگ و مهمان*نوازي است و حضور اتباع آمريكايي در داخل ايران، آنها را با واقعيت*ها آشنا مي*كند، ولي اتباع ايراني نيز در مبادي ورودي آمريكا بسيار مورد توهين قرار مي*گيرند كه نمونه*هاي زيادي از اين مسئله وجود دارد كه با آنها به عنوان جنايت*كار برخورد مي*شود.

                              وي با تاكيد بر اين*كه اين مسئله نيز از گذشته وجود داشته، افزود: يكي از نمونه*هاي آن نماينده فقيد شاهرود، مرحوم حسيني*شاهرودي بود كه در يكي از فرودگاه*هاي آمريكا به نوعي مورد بازرسي سخت قرار گرفت و از همان فرودگاه به خارج از آمريكا بازگردانده شد.

                              عضو هيأت رئيسه كميسيون امنيت ملي و سياست*خارجي با اشاره به توهين*هاي صورت گرفته به خبرنگاران،* اساتيد دانشگاه، ورزشكاران و شهروندان ايراني در فرودگاه*هاي آمريكا، اظهار داشت: حتي برخي از اساتيد دانشگاه كه بسيار سالخورده، و به لحاظ جسمي بسيار كم*توان بودند، مورد بازرسي، انگشت*نگاري و اهانت قرار گرفتند كه البته اين مسئله درخصوص ورزشكاران و شهروندان نيز بسيار بوجود آمده است.

                              جلالي ادامه داد: يكي از خبرنگاران هم گفته بود كه دو سال پيش زماني كه به آمريكا رفت، در فرودگاه متوقف شد و زماني كه به دست*ها و پاهاي او زنجيز زده بودند، اجازه*ي ورود به آمريكا را به وي ندادند و در همان حالت وارد هواپيماي ديگر كردند و زماني كه وارد هواپيما شد، ساير مسافران با خشم به گونه*اي كه وي يك تروريست و جاني است به او نگاه مي*كردند و ما همواره شاهد چنين صحنه*هايي بوده*ايم.

                              عضو كميسيون امنيت ملي و سياست خارجي مجلس در پايان، تصريح كرد: البته در برخي از كشورها نيز مانند امارات، شاهد برخي از بدرفتاري*ها هستيم كه بايد به نوعي از اين وضعيت جلوگيري شود.




                              Comment


                              • #60
                                It is hoped an Iranian imprisoned because he had refused to sign papers which would see him sent back home amid fears for his life could soon be out of jail. Supporters of chef Thomas Yadegary have picketed Mount Eden jail in Auckland where he has been held for nearly two years.

                                He has refused to sign the papers as he says he has converted to Christianity and fears persecution in Iran. Amnesty International has decided any return would breach New Zealand's international human rights obligations.

                                Supporter John Minto thinks that should be enough to get him out.

                                He says because of Amnesty's decision, they want the government to give Yadegary a temporary visa to allow him to work here, as he has done in the past.

                                John Minto says Mr Yadegary would be a good contributor to the country.

                                He says it is time for an overhaul of laws which allow people in this situation to be imprisoned for long periods of time.

                                Mr Minto says New Zealanders are not naturally harsh people by nature, but this man has been in jail for two years without trial or any charges laid against him.

                                He hopes he could be allowed out within weeks after the recent Amnesty ruling.



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X