Appeals board won't reopen deportation case of alleged Nazi guard Demjanjuk - The Boston Globe

Because the Immigration Appeals board won't reopen deportation case of alleged Nazi guard Demjanjuk, John Demjanjuk's only recourse lies in the US Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit.

I have discussed similar cases previously in Zajanckauskas, Henss, Selective Prosecution and Equal Protection and pointed out

The Functions Manual: Criminal Division of the DOJ (http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/crm.htm) says the following on the Office of Special Investigations.

Special investigations - since its creation in 1979, the Office of Special Investigations has been responsible for detecting, investigating, and taking legal action to denaturalize and/or deport persons who took part in Nazi-sponsored acts of persecution committed abroad during the period 1933-45 and, since December 2004, also for detecting, investigating, and taking legal action to denaturalize persons who participated abroad in acts of genocide or in acts of torture or extrajudicial killings committed under color of foreign law.

As far as I know the OSI has investigated neither for Jews involved in Soviet torture, extrajudicial killings, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, or genocide nor for Jews involved in revenge killings or torture after the defeat of Nazi Germany nor for Jews involved in pre-state Zionist or Israeli torture, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, genocide, or extrajudicial killings. Yet both Polish and also Lithuanian prosecutors have indicted or investigated Israeli Jews for such crimes. (See http://tinyurl.com/25zwfp for discussion of a Lithuanian case.)

The OSI has as of today yet to open up an investigation of Rahm Emanuel's father Benjamin, who currently has a medical practice on the north side of Chicago and who was according to the Daily News "once a member of the Irgun militia that fought for Israel's statehood."

When I lived in Chicago, I heard stories suggesting that Benjamin had taken part in terrorism and mass killing.

Demjanjuk was stripped of US citizenship because he was unable to clarify his activities during WW2. Yet OSI has never forced Russian Soviet or Israeli Jews with a high probability of involvment in genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings to provide a full accounting of their pre-immigration activities.

The US Supreme Court is quite clear in the often cited case YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

In the present cases, we are not obliged to reason from the probable to the actual, and pass upon the validity of the ordinances complained of, as tried merely by the opportunities which their terms afford, of unequal and unjust discrimination in their administration; for the cases present the ordinances in actual operation, and the facts shown establish an administration directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons as to warrant and require the conclusion that, whatever may have been the intent of the ordinances as adopted, they are applied by the public authorities charged with their administration, and thus representing the state itself, with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the state of that equal protection of the laws which is secured to the petitioners, as to all other persons, by the broad and benign provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal [118 U.S. 356, 374] hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259 ; Chy Luny v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 ; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 ; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 ; and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 ; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730.

The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite deemed by the law, or by the public officers charged with its administration, necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire, or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood; and while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them, and from 200 others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, 80 others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which, in the eye of the law, is not justified. The discrimination is therefore illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is therefore illegal, and they must be discharged. To this end the judgment of the supreme court of California in the Case of Yick Wo, and that of the circuit court of the United States for the district of California in the Case of Wo Lee, are severally reversed, and the cases remanded, each to the proper court, with directions to discharge the petitioners from custody and imprisonment.

Either the OSI has to start investigating probable Jewish genocidaires and mass murderers like Benjamin Emanuel, or Demjanjuk should be left in peace.

Otherwise the USA cannot be considered a Rechtstaat, which is a state ruled by law, but should instead be deemed a Judenstaat, where Jews are priviliged over non-Jews as is the case in the State of Israel.

I brought up the equal protection issue in a discussion on Jewcy.com: Pointing Fingers and Awarding Holocaust Heroics—What’s the Big Deal? My contribution starts with the seventh comment. The chauvinist Jewish response is quite enlightening.


Posted using ShareThis
Sphere: Related Content