“Asylum” is a prescription to heal from and prevent government persecution, including genocide, that Maine Republican legislators now resent as a “budgeting problem.” To be granted asylum in this country, asylum seekers must provide observed medical and psychological evidence of wounds suffered from past persecution and proof they will suffer again at the hands of their native government. Applicants cannot work for six months after applying. By law, criminals cannot apply.
In 1948, the United Nations acknowledged Asylum as a powerful prescription against the Holocaust because many of its victims had no place to go to escape the Third Reich’s persecution. Thus the UN Declaration of Human Rights in Article 14, cites the right to seek asylum from government persecution, as a human right.
The world took its time recognizing the enormous human swath the hatred of the Holocaust cut The reality that asylum was a prescription against persecution in the future gained traction quickly.
Many Maine asylum seekers are survivors of the 1994 Rwandan genocide when 800,000 Tutsis were murdered over 100 days. Others hold beliefs that their native governments don’t like and have been persecuted, jailed, physically maimed and attacked. Many have seen family members disappear.
The biggest fear we have, Governor Lepage and the 63 Republicans in the Maine House of Representatives say who voted against food, shelter and basic necessities for Asylum seekers is a big budget. No, no, friends. The greatest fear we have is the neglect of human rights that empowers governments to detain, persecute and murder because you disagree with policies or because of your race, religion, ethnicity or creed. Sixty-three Republicans and the Governor say provision of asylum to protect fundamental human rights costs too much. When money is more important than protecting the legacy created – Asylum- to prevent genocide and protect human rights, we should all be terrified.
Susan Cook Bath
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less