The Right of Privacy and Asylum

There seems to be some confusion about Asylum and the DSK mess

1) The accuser does appear to be a warped criminal. This is information that was gleaned through legitimate investigation into a criminal case.

What annoys me is the attitude of this person that was granted a privaledge based upon fraud. Apparently, she feels it is also OK to lie on her taxes and get housing benefits she has not qualified for.

Just what group of losers, have been championing Immigration as a right? The far left rips up the social contract and twists asylum law into a joke and the rest of us deal with the consequences.

2) It is never OK to release information in Asylum testimony to the especially considering this person was a crime victim. Law enforcement has zero reason to look into what essentially is sacred private testimony.

If criminal actions warrant a second look it should be done quietly and discreetly
by a trained asylum officer and or immigration judge. The applicant should be represented by competent counsel who is familiar with the laws of asylum.

3) It is unlikely that even were the benefits stripped that this person would be returned to their country of origin. Good luck finding another country that will accept a pathologically seedy person.

The contents of asylum cases are deeply personal testimony. Revealing that testimony
under almost all circumstances is a bad idea. When legitimate applicants see the violation of trust the will not step forward as leaking this testimony may endanger family members. Seedy types will always make up false claims.