Will Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a Naturalized US citizen

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Asylum is granted when the refugee is in serious danger if they return to their home country, so are granted permission to live in another country. The family were refugees exiled from their homeland who moved to the US from Kurdistan. While the circumstances that led to their accepted asylum claim when they first moved to the US (the two men were young children then) existed at the time of the asylum, it does not mean that those same dangerous circumstances still exist today. In fact, they do not and the world is a different place from when they first moved here. Both the asylum claim and the desire to return to the home they were forced to leave can be valid and do not indicate any sort of dishonesty or immigration fraud. It seems from different media sources that the younger boy adapted well to US society while the older one had trouble.It will really be interesting to learn what 'motive' they had for this horrendous attack - and how much of it was predicated by the older brother.

[Boiler 45,711]

It would appear that neither was born in Kurdistan or actually lived in Kurdistan.

I certainly would be fascinated to see their Asylum or Refugee claim and how it compares with the facts.

Would not surprise me if this never comes to light.

The reasons are pretty obvious, one of the advantages of the common use of social media.

[newlyweds2010 208]

Res Ipsa Loquita is a well defined legal term under UK law, not sure about the rest of the world though, maybe something got lost in translation lol

I did a quick research on Google, and couldn't find a single reference to it. At this point I am intrigued, really. The word 'Loquita' just seems wrong to me, though. The verb 'loquor' is a so called deponent verb, and it becomes 'loquitur' in the 3rd-person singular (it looks like a passive form, but it's not). Therefore 'Res Ipsa Loquitur' means 'The thing itself speaks'. In the US it is a doctrine of tort law used to infer the elements of duty of care and breach from the nature of an accident without direct evidence of how the defendant behaved. In other words, the accident itself speaks. Since this is a common-law doctrine, I would assume that it came from England. What does it mean under UK law today?

[Boiler 45,711]

The thing speaks for itself.

[LA-N400 4]

hi,

A legal question sorrounding this case - Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be given Miranda warning -"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."?

Since Dzhokhar is a naturalized American, he should be accorded with all the rights as an American under the Constitution. He should be presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

I happened to read the "opinion" in Chicago Tribute -Terrorists and the Constitution by Stave Chapman.One interesting point highlighted by Steve is -"It's strange to think that if Adam Lanza had been captured after killing 27 people, no senator would have thought it appropriate to violate his constitutional rights. But because Tsarnaev is accused of terrorism (which killed far fewer people), some people want to throw out all safeguards.

The Constitution was not meant to be enforced only when it's convenient. The government has an obligation to give even a suspected bomber the right to be silent and the right to consult a lawyer. That's called the rule of law. Senators are supposed to uphold it."

So, would it be different if Adam Lanza were captured alive today after the mass killings of those innoncent little children? Will Adam Lanza be exempted from "Miranda warning"?

Do naturalized US Citizens have the same rights compared to those natural born citizens?(Note: The only different is natural born citizens can run for election for President & vice president.)

Please share you views on this.

Edited April 21, 2013 by LA-N400

[Boiler 45,711]

Miranda is not an absolute, an exception exists in case of public safety.

In the Lanza case we now know he was a loner, that may not have been an initial known so your conclusion may well be false.

[LA-N400 4]

Miranda is not an absolute, an exception exists in case of public safety.

In the Lanza case we now know he was a loner, that may not have been an initial known so your conclusion may well be false.

Hi,

Both Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Adam Lanza posed threats to public safety, the same goes to all the crimes conducted by all perpetrators. I don't agree that solely because Adam Lanza was acting "alone", he deserved the rights and protection for a fair trial (if he were captured alive today), whereas Dzhokhar should be deprived of his rights even in a limited period of time. Do you think the killings by Adam Lanza "alone" is considered "less severe" than what Dzhokhar has committed. (Please look at the faces of those innocent little children). A crime is a crime, even with the killing of a single innocent soul.

My question is - should Dzhokhar be entitled to an attorney? He is presumed innoncent unless proven guilty. What the government is doing now is to invoke his Miranda rights for an attorney for certain period.

I am not expert in US court system. But if the Government fails the uphold the rights of its citizens under the Constitution, why should we need the Constitution for? This important document defines the basic rights of each American.

Note: This is just a discussion on the rights of US citizen. I am not advocating any form of crimes against humanity.

Edited April 21, 2013 by LA-N400

[Boiler 45,711]

IF Lanza had survived and IF there had been a possibility he was not a lone wolf then the same issues would have applied.

The Constitution is a collection of words open to interpretation, the Miranda case clarified that interpretation, it is of course open to reinterpretation, but that would no doubt be an issue for the Supreme Court should they deem to hear it.

You might want to do a search on Living Constitution.

And Birthright Citizenship.

Also see the recent attempts to redefine the Second Amendment.

[NickD 203]

Kind of explains that sentence in your oath letter.

"You must bring the following with you:"

"Reentry Permit or Refugee Travel Document."

"Any immigration documents you may have."

Both boxes were checked on my wife's and stepdaughter's oath letter, really didn't know what they were talking about, all they wanted from them was their green cards.

Immigration is far more familiar with marriage, work permit, or the lottery, this answers the question about asylum.

Bringing kids here, especially teenagers is not easy, only questions I had from the USCIS regarding this issue with plenty of proof, is that I could support her. With English as a far second language, some kids at school were making fun of her. I would not put up with that, requested several meetings at her school with the principle, the offending kids, and their parents to work these issues out. Then to teach her the laws of this country and the consequences of not obeying them. Raising a kid is a lot of work.

Apparently these two boys didn't have that guidance, and someone sure in the hell taught them how to make bombs. Everything with the USCIS is about money, maybe they should take a second look at their procedures. It takes a lot more than money to raise a kid.

Do have laws, a friend that just recently adopted a foreign born child had to put exit signs all over his house. For a three month old baby? So help me, we are led by idiots.

[destiny64 222]

I don't think in light of "future" public safety that Miranda Rights should apply. I believe a lawyer would stop him from giving out much needed information in the event they weren't alone in this and had been directed and trained from outside or inside the country.

Do we really want this kid to be told to clam up and not give out any information that would help to understand if others are involved. Just my opinion, sometimes I think criminals have too many rights. Their victims were stripped of life and their families deserve the justice of truth and not something that a lawyer is filtering to protect their client. Innocent' until proven guilty? The events after the bombing are proof enough that these brothers are guilty as hell, no court system will convince me of otherwise.

[Gosia & Tito 199]

I am not a criminal lawyer, but I don't think that it would be that simple to claim the application of the Geneva Convention. First, one can always renounce his or her citizenship. If the enemy combatant argument was a defense, he could always renounce his citizenship without having the US Government take it away from him. However, I would be surprised if there was nothing in the Patriot Act excluding the application of the Geneva Convention for this kind of crimes. Also, you have to look at the facts at the time of the crime. Until he renounces (or is taken away) his citizenship, he is a US citizen, and he was last week when he committed the crime. At that time he was not an enemy combatant; he committed a crime against his peers. Finally, there have been other cases of naturalized citizens who committed or attempted to commit this kind of horrible acts: think of that guy with the van in Manhattan a few years ago. He was tried and found guilty, and is now in prison for life without parole in the US. Is he still a US citizen or not (just asking, I don't know the answer)?

I don't have answers either, I was just trying to note that this is going to be a complex and difficult case (judicial side). I do have a lot of court exposure and I have seem some absurd (yet legal) things happening, so I've learn to never discount anything. As I said, it is one thing what you know and another what can be proved.

We'll see over time.

Since we in this forum have a more direct connection to someone foreign who would eventually become a citizen, it is important -I think- to understand the repercusions this case can bring into our own cases. A knee jerk approach would certainly won't help us; and at same time, we all want some guarantees that USCIS does a real job of weeding out the bad guys. We also want the general public reaction to be informed and educated as oposed to just plain xenophobic

Edited April 21, 2013 by Gosia & Tito

[destiny64 222]

I don't have answers either, I was just trying to note that this is going to be a complex and difficult case (judicial side). I do have a lot of court exposure and I have seem some absurd (yet legal) things happening, so I've learn to never discount anything. As I said, it is one thing what you know and another what can be proved.

We'll see over time.

Since we in this forum have a more direct connection to someone foreign who would eventually become a citizen, it is important -I think- to understand the repercusions this case can bring into our own cases. A knee jerk approach would certainly won't help us; and at same time, we all want some guarantees that USCIS does a real job of weeding out the bad guys. We also want the general public reaction to be informed and educated as oposed to just plain xenophobic

Someone came into my workplace who doesn't have knowledge of the fact that I'm awaiting a visa for my husband who is moslim. Of course the topic that day was the Boston bombings. This man said " Every single one of those moslims are Jihadists and I don't think another moslim should be allowed to enter our country:. Count to TEN!!! Another one of my coworkers said to the guy hey you can't categorize the acts of a few to all religions or races. I never said a word just let it go, I had to consider the source and feel comfort that there are more (hopefully ) intelligent and non racist people in this world than this guy!

[Boiler 45,711]

Racist?

These 2 are most likely Caucasian.

[destiny64 222]

Racist?

These 2 are most likely Caucasian.

Racism isn't only about the color of skin.

[Boiler 45,711]

So they were being racist against Caucasians. What race were they not that it really matters.

The was you had phrased it I has assumed something different.