El Cajon shooting
The news stories about the shooting death of Alfred Olango by El Cajon, CA police list the dead man's age as 38. That is an estimate. There was no birth certificate. Mr. Olango was born in Uganda and came to the U.S. as a refugee in 1991. The Uganda he grew up in was a nation ruled by a series of brutal leaders and clearly his experiences caused him to emigrate to the West.
Refugees need a place to go, and as long as we address the issues of keeping our nation safe, as members of a global community we need to do our share. But that doesn't mean we should be forced to keep refugees who prove they are not fit to be members of our society. Mr. Olango was ordered to be deported twice. Both times his native Uganda failed to allow him to be repatriated to that nation.
Why was he ordered deported? The first time he was convicted of transporting and selling narcotics. The second time came after he finished serving a prison term for a firearms violation. Both crimes serious enough to warrant deportation and a lifetime ban from reentering the U.S.
The problem is that a U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in Zadvydas v. Davis prohibits the U.S. from detaining those ordered deported for more than six months without demonstrating that they can eventually be sent elsewhere; or a "special circumstance."
So what do we do with people like Mr. Olango who have clearly demonstrated they do not belong in the U.S.? Even if we were to create a "stateless space" somewhere in the U.S. where such people could be sent and kept until another nation is willing to take them, SCOTUS would consider that detention. A prison, no matter how nice, is still a prison in the eyes of the law.
What other nation, if not the original home of a refugee will accept someone being deported for criminal acts? What would be their motivation?
It seems there is no good answer. And in the final analysis, the fact that this man was here even after twice being ordered deported is NOT relevant in the discussion of whether or not he should have been shot by police officers. Yes, I've buried the lead, but by design. I wanted to see if those who are as interested as I am in seeing that police officers are better trained to deescalate rather than reach for firearms will read past the arguments we will hear from anti-immigration proponents to get this far.
No matter what the reason for Mr. Olango's continued presence in the U.S., even if he were found to actually be an EDP (a cop acronym for Emotionally Disturbed Person), doesn't justify shooting him UNLESS he presented an imminent threat to the lives of others. I don't know the specifics or how tough it is to distinguish an e-cigarette from a gun; but this requires investigation. Preferably an independent investigation not designed to protect cops. The cops might have been right to shoot. They may have been wrong. But only an independent investigation by an outside agency can guarantee an unbiased analysis.
Refugees need a place to go, and as long as we address the issues of keeping our nation safe, as members of a global community we need to do our share. But that doesn't mean we should be forced to keep refugees who prove they are not fit to be members of our society. Mr. Olango was ordered to be deported twice. Both times his native Uganda failed to allow him to be repatriated to that nation.
Why was he ordered deported? The first time he was convicted of transporting and selling narcotics. The second time came after he finished serving a prison term for a firearms violation. Both crimes serious enough to warrant deportation and a lifetime ban from reentering the U.S.
The problem is that a U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in Zadvydas v. Davis prohibits the U.S. from detaining those ordered deported for more than six months without demonstrating that they can eventually be sent elsewhere; or a "special circumstance."
So what do we do with people like Mr. Olango who have clearly demonstrated they do not belong in the U.S.? Even if we were to create a "stateless space" somewhere in the U.S. where such people could be sent and kept until another nation is willing to take them, SCOTUS would consider that detention. A prison, no matter how nice, is still a prison in the eyes of the law.
What other nation, if not the original home of a refugee will accept someone being deported for criminal acts? What would be their motivation?
It seems there is no good answer. And in the final analysis, the fact that this man was here even after twice being ordered deported is NOT relevant in the discussion of whether or not he should have been shot by police officers. Yes, I've buried the lead, but by design. I wanted to see if those who are as interested as I am in seeing that police officers are better trained to deescalate rather than reach for firearms will read past the arguments we will hear from anti-immigration proponents to get this far.
No matter what the reason for Mr. Olango's continued presence in the U.S., even if he were found to actually be an EDP (a cop acronym for Emotionally Disturbed Person), doesn't justify shooting him UNLESS he presented an imminent threat to the lives of others. I don't know the specifics or how tough it is to distinguish an e-cigarette from a gun; but this requires investigation. Preferably an independent investigation not designed to protect cops. The cops might have been right to shoot. They may have been wrong. But only an independent investigation by an outside agency can guarantee an unbiased analysis.
posted by me at 4:19 AM
<< Home