There may not be mosques in Green River presently, but what about in the future? How would he react if a mosque were to be built in Green River? Would he be willing to let others exercise their freedom of religion or would he react the same way he did in India? Sah has a history of infringing on the religious freedoms of others. The courts also recognized that Sah’s group was affiliated with a group that persecuted Christians as well as Muslims. Are we supposed to grant him citizenship only to find out he wants to destroy Christian churches as well? Maybe he would like to destroy some LDS temples while he’s at it. We just don’t know what he would do and to err on the side of caution is the roper course of action. His family wouldn’t have been broken apart had he not elected to have a child in our country while his case for political asylum was pending review. His claim for political asylum was nothing more than a con and it might not be too far of a stretch to think that he wanted an “anchor baby” to bolster his case. As far as we know, he didn’t break the law here. Neither did many criminals that are presently imprisoned in foreign lands. That doesn’t mean that we’re granting them political asylum.

Hatch doesn’t need to get involved in this case. Sah has admitted to inciting violence in his own country and we have no reason to believe that he wouldn’t do the same thing here if he were to be granted citizenship. I didn’t know about your journal a year ago and I only ran across it while researching Sah’s case. The problem with discussing a case with an attorney is that they’re paid to represent one side of the case. They’ll tell you the version that’s most favorable to their client. If courts made their decisions based on what was presented in the media then we would have a very lopsided legal system. A court listens to both sides of the argument and considers all of the facts before rendering a judgment. That’s why I’ve relied on the findings of 3 different courts to form my opinion. Those courts found that the arguments presented by Sah and his attorney were not credible. Now, you’re asking Hatch to overrule 3 courts that listened to all of the arguments and reviewed all of the facts. Of course, he’s not going to do that.

I agree that the immigration system needs to be overhauled. It’s seriously deficient. It needs to be streamlined and we need better border security. Those really aren’t huge factors in Sah’s case though. He came here with a student visa and only applied for political asylum when his student visa was about to expire. He was permitted to remain in our country for the next 15 years and he did very well for himself during that time. Given the findings of the various courts it’s very likely that had our system been fixed prior to ’91 he would have been deported shortly after he submitted his application for political asylum. He might not have experienced the successes he experienced while living in Green River. He still owns his businesses in Green River and on the east coast. His experience in America was far from a total loss.

The confession contained no admission of violence against other humans. This is important because there are no mosques on Hindu land in Green River, or anywhere else in America. It is a weak excuse to send someone home, especially when it breaks a family apart. What is it exactly, did Sah do that broke the law here?

The use of labels like “terrorist” and “pro-illegal supporter” makes me realize this discussion is futile. My journal entry was about the priorities of our representation in Washington. Something I’d imagine you’re content with if you voted for the incumbent. Hatch’s office could have saved a lot of P.R. trouble if they followed your definition of the case, but they didn’t because it isn’t about terrorism. In spite of Heather Barney’s assertion, they’ve done a whole lot of nothing on this case. The immigration system needs reform and a 700 mile border-fence is a waste of time and money. I’ve clearly outlined what my remedies for immigration are and streamlining the system is an enormous part of that. How much time and effort did you put into promoting your view when I wrote this blog entry one year ago? I sat down with the Sahs’ attorney and discussed the case with him before spreading my opinion. Have you?

Sah admits that he held a leadership role within the organization and that he organized some of the riots. He admits that the organization persecuted non-Hindus and sought to destroy their mosques. He admits participating in one of these riots in an effort to destroy a mosque. The man confessed and you still stick up for him as if he’s a victim of some great injustice. I didn’t claim that immigration judges heard criminal cases. You keep relying on a criminal conviction as the only acceptable form of proof despite the man’s own confession. He didn’t claim that the confession was beaten out of him or that he was coerced to make those statements. He made them of his own volition.

I’ll call him a terrorist because his actions justify it and it matches the definition given by our government long before the war on terror began. Terrorism isn’t reliant upon ethnicity, but ethnicity is what motivated Sah. Protestors do not normally qualify as terrorists, but Sah was much more than a protestor simply marching in the streets to have his voice heard. Rarely are the facts of his deportation being reported by the media. Your journal didn’t even report his history or the reason given by our own government for his deportation. He is far from innocent and certainly not a victim. The efforts to withhold the truth about his past and the real reason for his deportation are an example of just how desperate the pro-illegal supporters are to put a sympathetic face on their side of the debate.

Again, I agree with you that immigration was too slow. This man’s past justified a speedier response. He should have been deported back in ’91 when he first filed his false asylum application. Our asylum protections aren’t restricted to just an area of a person’s native country. Those protections must consider the conditions in the entire country. The court found that the 800 million Hindus in India were the majority and that Sah could return to his country without fear of the same persecution he inflicted on non-Hindus. This information is in the decision too. From the media attention he’s still getting it’s apparent that the court was right about him being able to live his life in India, which further justifies the court’s conclusion that his claim for political asylum was bogus.

Sah’s admissions are organizing meetings and attending a riot. Please point me to the confession of violence against people, because I don’t see it. Your concern for Mosques built on sacred Hindu land is admirable, but I really don’t think we need to be concerned about that here.

I don’t believe people who hold meetings and participate in demonstrations are terrorists. You don’t know if Sahs’ actions in the “riot” were bystander, chief-demolisher, rock thrower, or defender. You merely pass judgment of “terrorism” like it is a given fact and pretend immigration judges decide criminal cases. If he was a violent criminal, he would still be tried in India, regardless of the majority rule. Do you judge the largest democracy in the world as harshly as you judge its citizens? You seem to know so much about the ethnic makeup and dominant political powers of India, can you tell me what ethnic background their President is from?

Are rioters protesting the WTO around the world all “terrorists” or are they justified because there is no ethnic group on the other side? Is Eric Rudolph not a “terrorist” because he is part of the dominant religion in the USA? Your definition of “terrorist” is overbroad and it still stands that it never came up in this case. You can call Ken Sah a “terrorist” all you want, but the fact remains that nobody else is.

His claim that he would be persecuted as a Hindu in the region of India that he was from was valid for 1997 where they were a MINORITY. Segregation and separation and an entire decade have changed that situation. It nevertheless does not justify 10 years of inaction by immigration. Carrilles’ “proceedings” lasted two years.

Sah admitted to his actions. That is part of the court decision and the various courts found those claims to be credible. He confessed! How much more proof do you need? I am simply repeating his admission. His actions make him a terrorist. He deliberately acted to persecute non-Hindus. Who were the beer rioters trying to persecute?

The courts didn’t stop at just calling his statements contradictory. What the courts said was that his oral statements were not credible when compared to the written statements he submitted with his application. The court even described his written statements as “militant” and recognized his oral statements as an effort to downplay his “militant” writings.

You hide behind the absence of criminal proceedings in his homeland while ignoring another fact recognized by the immigration judge. His religion is in the majority and governs India. It’s unlikely that India would try him for his actions against a minority. In this country we recognize equal rights among different groups despite their percentage of the population.

I see somebody who knew he was at the mercy of our government at a time when all foreign nationals are scrutinized. With his violent history he had to behave or he would have had no chance of convincing anybody that he was a victim so he could attain U.S. citizenship. His whole case rested on his claims that he was a victim.

Neither the court nor you have been able to justify Ken Sah as a “terrorist”. My entry didn’t need to talk about Carriles because nobody has described Sah as a terrorist until you have in your comments. Carriles is a self-admitted bomber who enjoys American citizenship and is being protected against extradition. You characterize Sah as a ringleader in a riot and an attack, but he hasn’t been charged with anything in the country where it happened. Unless you were a witness or there are court proceedings convicting Ken Sah of such offenses then you have no authority to accuse the man. There was a beer “riot” at the Salt Lake Olympics, were the participants “terrorists” or just drunk?

Even the IJ does not make this claim. What is said is that his statements are contradictory and I think that is a pretty weak reason to throw someone out of the country who has followed the law and made a contribution to our economy, even if it is upheld three times. Even more so when a U.S. Senator makes exceptions for all kinds of other immigration offenses except one that is near election time.

As for the contradictory statements, what I see is someone who came out of an ethnically charged environment and lost his hate and prejudice over a decade. What a horrible offense and danger to this country.

Your journal entry portrayed Ken Sah as an innocent victim. I attempted to correct your characterization of him by presenting facts. Your entry didn’t include anything about Luis Posada Carriles.

The Sahs were not on trial for criminal acts. They were applying for asylum in a court that took nearly a decade to do something. When did America switch to guilty before proven innocent?

I agree that it shouldn’t have taken so long to deport him. I think 9 years and 11 months is way too close to the 10-year mark that would have granted him automatic asylum. Unfortunately, that’s how the system currently works. The system is backlogged and it’s getting worse every day. The only way to catch up is to seal the borders until we can evaluate the people that are already here.

This is from the decision ‘The IJ denied the request for asylum, relying largely on three findings. First, the IJ concluded that Sah’s oral statements were not credible in light of the contradiction between his testimony and his original asylum application. Second, the IJ found that, notwithstanding his testimony to the contrary, Sah had participated in the persecution of non-Hindus and thus was ineligible for asylum. Third, the IJ noted that “India has approximately 800 million Hindus living there and [Sah] has not shown that he could not live in another area where it is more peaceful for people of his religion.” R. 46.’

Also from the decision ‘Finally, the IJ found that Vishwa was affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which a State Department report characterized as “a Hindu nationalist party with links to Hindu extremist groups that have been implicated in violent acts against Christians and Muslims.” R. 45’

Doesn’t “violent acts against Christians and Muslims” qualify as terrorism? The State Department apparently thought it did.