Somalia Demonstrates How Vexing & Complex Immigration Issues Can Be

By Bill West

Remember the case of Somali alien Keyse Jama? He is the �refugee� who became a criminal alien in Minnesota who was placed in deportation proceedings and appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming he shouldn�t be deported because Somalia has no viable national government that can officially accept his return. In January, he lost�at least at the Supreme Court level (an issue covered in the CT Blog on 1/27).

Yesterday, the Associated Press ran an interesting story about Jama. It seems the Feds, in duly attempting to execute their sworn duty to finally deport Jama, who, over four years, had fully exhausted his extensive legal appeals under U.S. law (yes, the very immigration laws and procedures that some media and special interest groups deem to be something akin to a draconian �star chamber�) and lost his case before the Nation�s highest Court, could not be physically removed to Somalia, after all.

But, it wasn�t for lack of trying. According to the AP report, last week, ICE officials flew Jama to Kenya, where they turned him over to a private security firm for further transport to Bossasso, Somalia. When Jama got to Bossasso, �authorities� there refused to allow him to enter the country and he was ultimately returned to the custody of the ICE officers. He was then flown back to the United States, and remains in custody in the St. Paul, Minnesota area pending further decisions in his case.

The Supreme Court decided that, legally, there was no bar to the U.S. Government deporting Jama, or any other similarly situated deportable alien, to Somalia or any other country that just didn�t happen to have a viable national government that would �officially� accept their return. There are about 3500 other Somalis under final removal orders who are no doubt anxiously waiting to see what happens in the Jama case. The rest of us should at least pay some attention, as well.

We probably don�t need to imagine too hard who those �authorities� in Bossasso really were. Somalia is essentially a country divided into warlord fiefdoms. Bossasso was no doubt chosen by that contract security company as a place they thought they could most easily and quickly accomplish an entry, drop-off and departure with the minimum amount of payoff to the local gunmen at the airport. Something obviously did not go according to plan, and the private security escorts, possibly unarmed and undoubtedly outgunned even if they were armed, decided retreat in the face of whatever potential trouble they faced was the better part of valor.

The Jama case is significantly noteworthy because it highlights how complex immigration issues can be, particularly when dealing with volatile third world countries with a long history of terrorism and violence. Somalia, a hotbed of al-Qaeda sympathizers and operatives, with no viable government beyond heavily armed drug smuggling warlords overseeing their own chunk of geography, may be a place to where we can �legally� deport aliens, but actually doing that is clearly going to be another matter. The physical process of safely and securely moving human beings from here to there suddenly becomes a whole other issue.

And, that becomes an issue of foreign policy and even national security. Consider the options. If the United States cannot effectively deport these Somalis under this �normal� process, then what? How far do we go? Surely, with the utilization of enough military resources�military transport planes and armed troops for security�these deportees could be flown in unannounced at remote locations, dropped off (deported) and the U.S. personnel then depart with relative safety. Is that an alternative we should really employ? And, that is an expensive alternative, which theoretically employs an armed military incursion each time we deport people. Then again, where�s the Somali government to resist or complain?

And, what if we do nothing and we don�t deport those 3500 Somalis the Supreme Court now says we can legally remove? We can say we�re temporarily deferring their removal for humanitarian purposes. But, if we do that, we also run the risk of being perceived by many, not the least of which would be many in the radical Islamic world, of being afraid and incapable of conducting these deportations because of�what? The radical Muslim warlords controlling Somalia�some of whom are aligned with al-Qaeda? Is that really an option?

The case of Keyse Jama will remain one to watch.

TrackBack