Deportation is not a simple problem 

While anyone can share the underlying wish expressed in your editorial that alleged multiple murderer Binh Thai Luc had been physically removed from the U.S. following his deportation in 2006 (“Slayings a stark reminder to fix deportation laws,” Editorial, March 29), I was left entirely unclear as to which, if any, “immigration rules” the editorial board would like to see changed. The truth remains that Luc was simply “undeportable.”

Although Vietnam has recently agreed to accept some deportees who originally came to the U.S. after July 1995, all evidence points to Luc not falling within this category. Regardless, Vietnam’s failure to issue travel documents at the time of his deportation was not, as the editorial alleges, “untimely” — it was simply business as usual at a time when they weren’t accepting any U.S. deportees.

While it is technically correct to state that Luc’s deportation order was never carried out, my own experiences in dealing with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on behalf of my noncitizen clients leave me confident that this was not for lack of trying.

Deportation is not an entirely unilateral act, and we simply cannot force a friendly sovereign nation to repatriate individuals it refuses to recognize as citizens.

Given that the editorial agrees with the Supreme Court’s holding in Zadvydas v. Davis that it is unconstitutional to indefinitely detain criminal aliens who have served their sentences simply because their own countries will not accept them — and offers no other proposed change in the law — I am left wondering which, if any, “immigration rules” should now be revisited. Your choice to use the perpetrator of this senseless act of inhumanity as an example of a “breakdown of the immigration deportation process” was entirely misplaced, and does nothing for the current dismal state of the immigration “debate” (such as it is).

Matt Cameron
Boston, Mass.

Muni problems rampant

Paul Weber may feel that Muni is convenient (Letters, April 2), but I certainly do not. I have had many, many problems with Muni. Sometimes buses will not show up for 30 minutes or longer. Or buses are so crowded I cannot get on them. I once had to spend $15 for a taxi to get to an appointment due to a broken-down bus that blocked the route so no other buses could get through. It seems that Muni does not maintain its buses.

Also, why do so many Muni drivers wait for lights to turn red; are that many buses ahead of schedule?
This is not to mention the ongoing issues with the 30, 45 and 38 lines. If convenience is taken into account, the Muni Fast Pass is no bargain.

Brian Baum
San Francisco

Mission theaters forgotten

Glad to read your cover story (“S.F. theaters: The sequel,” April 1) on The City’s shuttered movie theaters, and glad that the renovation of the New Mission Theater was included in this story.

It seems whenever a story is done on the theaters that have closed down throughout The City, the Mission, which has suffered more than any other neighborhood in The City from shuttered theaters, is overlooked.

Other closed-down theaters in the Mission that were not mentioned in the article or in the accompanying graphic are: El Capitan, the Tower, Cine Latino and the Grand. These are like pockmarks on the face of an otherwise vital and creative neighborhood.

Mike Zonta
San Francisco

About The Author

Examiner Readers

Pin It

Speaking of Opinion

More by Examiner Readers

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation