Archive for China One Child Policy

Chinese national denied asylum because she reported pregnant women subjected to forced abortions

Posted in China, China One Child Policy, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Immigration with tags , , , , , , on November 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

A Chinese National who claims she was wrongfully denied asylum in the United States because she reported pregnant women pregnant in violation of China’s one-child family planning policies, has lost her bid before the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

On February 25, 2008, Suzhen Meng was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor with authorization to remain for six months.

Five months later, on July 24, 2008, Meng filed for asylum stating that she had suffered past political persecution when, as a public security officer in her local community, she refused to collect a security fee from residents and wrote a letter to the local public security bureau alleging that the police chief was corrupt.

Meng asserted that, as a result of these actions, her passport was confiscated and she was arrested and held in custody for 14 days, during which time a guard slapped her in the face several times and fellow prisoners beat her on instruction of the guards.

Ten months later, Meng’s passport was returned when she promised not to engage in any further anti-government activities, whereupon she left China.

After having overstayed her visa Meng was later brought before a US immigration hearing.

During that hearing, she testified that in her twenty-two years as a public security officer her duties included reporting all pregnant women to China’s family planning office, including women pregnant in violation of state limitations.

Meng told the judge that she understood that when she reported a woman to authorities, that woman would be punished, typically by being forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization.

In addition, Meng testified to having seen women dragged away forcibly by the police.

Meng said that despite the severe consequences to women who were reported as pregnant against China law, she continued to make her reports. In her attempt to receive sympathy she claimed that she sometimes advised women whom she would report as being pregnant to go into hiding or to flee.

On November 3, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit upheld the decision of the Immigration Judge in denying Meng’s application for asylum. That judge had ruled that Meng’s active assistance in the persecution of pregnant women barred her from receiving asylum and ordered her removal from the United States.

In writing the court’s opinion, Judges Reena Raggi explained that asylum is a form of discretionary relief granted when a person shows either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

“Meng does not–and cannot–dispute that forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations constitute persecution on a protected ground,” Raggi wrote. “Nor does she dispute that women in her community who became pregnant in violation of family planning policy were subjected to such persecution.”

Despite the fact that Meng attempted to claim she would be persecuted if asylum were denied the court was not persuaded and called Meng the persecutor, writing that, “Meng’s reports regularly resulted in persecution, she knew that, and she nevertheless continued to report.”

“Meng engaged in such reporting over a period of two decades. In short, her assistance in persecution was not a single, marked departure from her duties, but a regular, and important, aspect of her duties. While Meng may have encouraged some women to hide or flee to avoid the persecution that she knew would follow from her conduct, the record indicates that Meng nevertheless persisted in reporting women with unauthorized pregnancies as long as she served as a public security official. Accordingly, because the record evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Meng assisted in persecution, we identify no legal error in the agency’s determination that the persecutor bar rendered Meng ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal,” the denial of review states.

Baby’s throat cut found in trash – China’s One Child Forced Abortion Policies to blame

Posted in child abuse, China, China One Child Policy with tags , , , on August 3, 2012 by saynsumthn


An abandoned newborn baby is recovering in hospital after having her throat cut, being put in a plastic bag and thrown into a garbage bin in China’s Liaoning province.

The female baby – so newborn that her placenta and umbilical cord were still attached – was discovered by a man who was searching a bin for recyclables.

Local residents called police and the tiny girl was taken to hospital, where she remains in a critical condition.

Read more:

China’s Forced Abortion and One Child Family Planning Policies are to blame !

Obama ADMIN on China and their victims of Forced Abortions

Posted in China, China One Child Policy with tags , , , , , , , , , on May 4, 2012 by saynsumthn

A lot of attention is being paid to China’s Forced Abortion Policies lately because of blind Chinese Activist, Chen Guangcheng, who is exposing their policies, but exactly how does the Obama Admin feel about China’s policies, if actions speak louder than words- he TOLERATES it:

Chen told The Associated Press that friends who had tried to visit him “have been beaten,” his wife Yuan Weijing had been followed and U.S. officials had been prevented from seeing him in person.

A doctor from the U.S. embassy arrives Friday at the Chaoyang Hospital, where blind activist Chen Guangcheng is staying.

He added that he had spoken to U.S. officials by phone, but “the calls keep getting cut off after two sentences.”

“Basically I am very worried. Okay? … It is very dangerous here,” Chen told the AP, before the line went dead.

Chen, 40, is a legal activist from Shandong province who campaigned against forced abortions under China’s “one-child” policy.

On April 22, he escaped 19 months of house arrest, during which he and his family faced beatings and threats. Supporters then said he was in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, which he left after six days to go to the hospital on Tuesday this week after receiving assurances from the Chinese authorities.

According to the Today Show, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in China and in Clinton’s prepared remarks for the meeting did not specifically mention Chen, but did say that the responsibilities of a “great nation” included “protecting the fundamental freedoms of all citizens at home.”

“All governments have the responsibility of addressing their citizens’ aspirations for dignity and rule of law. These are not Western values — they are universal rights that apply to all people in all places,” she said.

But, in the United States, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told Reuters that Chen had been offered a fellowship from an American university, where he could be accompanied by his wife and two children.

Chen is asking the US and China to allow he and his family to leave on Clinton’s Plane out of the country.

Yesterday, Chen made this surprise call to someone attending a Congressional Hearing ( sponsored up by Rep. Chris Smith) , on the issue of Chen’s freedom:

OBAMA VP MAKES LIGHT OF CHINESE FORCED ABORTION POLICIES, “UNDERSTANDS” them:

Biden to China: “Not Second-Guessing” One-Child Policy
by Steven Ertelt | Beijing, China | LifeNews.com | 8/22/11 1:05 PM
Vice-President Joe Biden is in China to attempt to revive the financial image of the United States after a first-ever downgrade in its financial rating. In attempting to explain some of the financial concerns the U.S. faces, Biden talked about China’s one-child policy.

The one-child policy, instituted by the Communist government in the late 1970s to stem rising population, compels couples in urban areas to have just one child and limits couples in rural areas to two children if the first child is a girl, as girls are seen as having lesser value than boys in some parts of the Asian nation.

The policy has stirred global controversy since it was implemented, as it has resulted in massive campaigns of forced abortions and
sterilizations, fines for families violating the rule, sentences to prison and forced labor camps for violators and their families who shelter them from government officials, home detention, loss of jobs or government benefits, beatings and other human rights abuses.

In his statement, Biden talked about the other set of concerns about the one-child policy — demographic — in that China will increasingly have similar problems to the United States in terms of paying for entitlements to the growing number of people retiring who will need government support to make ends meet and a smaller population of
younger workers able to take care of those obligations.

“But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net,” Biden said in the prepared remarks. “Your policy has been one which I fully understand —I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of
four retired people. Not sustainable.”

“So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that,” he continued.

Although he highlighted the demographic concerns, his statement that the United States is “not second-guessing” the forced-abortion, one-child policy and his essentially ignoring the forced abortions, sterilizations and other human rights abuses that accompany it, will surely upset pro-life advocates who have campaigned extensively against the one-child policy and supported the victims of it.

The speech represents a second missed opportunity for the Obama administration to present a clear position against the policy that is one of the most egregious global human rights abuses in modern times. Biden’s comments follow a visit earlier this year from China President Hu Jintao, where President Barack Obama apparantly failed to ask the

foreign leader about the problem of forced abortions on Chinese women. Ask during a U.S. House hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn’t say whether Obama brought up the massive human rights abuse millions of Chinese women endure if they break the country’s one-child
family planning rules.

In remarks LifeNews.com received from New Jersey Republican Congressman Chris Smith’s office following the hearing, Smith let Clinton know in a statement he delivered during the hearing that China’s one-child policy is a problem.

“Since 1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in China as part of the barbaric one child per couple policy. And for 30 years, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has vigorously supported, funded, defended, promoted, even celebrated these massive crimes against humanity,” Smith told Clinton. “The uncontested facts are
these: Any Chinese, Tibetan, or Uyghur mother without a birth permit is put under coercive pressure to abort – if need be, she is physically forced to do so. All unwed moms are compelled to abort. In what can only be described as a search-and-destroy mission, disabled children are aborted as part of a nationwide eugenics program.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OBAMA Attorney General Eric Holder, Returns Chinese who are victims of FORCED ABORTIONS :
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JIA XIN OU v. HOLDER
JIA XIN OU, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS Respondents.
No. 09-2246-ag-NAC.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 13, 2010.

Henry Zhang, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Janice Redfern,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Scott Rempell, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROGER J. MINER, PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Jia Xin Ou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
seeks review of an April 30, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the
October 26, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte
Laforest, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
re Jia Xin Ou, No. A099 670 040 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2009), aff’g No. A099
670 040 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 26, 2007). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this
case.

We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
standards of review are well-settled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.
2007); see also Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2008).

Contrary to Ou’s argument, the IJ properly based her denial of his
applications for relief on Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494
F.3d 296, 309-12 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc), the controlling authority
at the time she rendered her oral decision, rather than based on the
law as it stood on the day of Ou’s April 2007 merits hearing. The IJ
could not have made her decision prior to DHS’s completion of the
requisite background checks. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(g) (requiring all
identity, law enforcement, and security investigations to be completed
prior to an IJ granting an application for immigration relief). Once
these background checks were complete, the IJ was bound to apply the
law as it stood on the day of her decision. See Harper v. Virginia
Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97-98 (1993) (finding that courts are
bound “to apply a rule of federal law retroactively after the case
announcing the rule has already done so” in all cases still open on
direct review).

Furthermore, we find no error in the agency’s denial of relief. Lin
does not contest that he was not eligible for asylum based on his
wife’s forced abortion
. See Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 309-12.
Moreover, contrary to Ou’s assertion, the factual record in the case
was “adequately developed” with respect to the issue of Ou’s “other
resistance” to the Chinese family planning policy. See Shu Wen Sun v.
BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 381 n.5 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Moreover, the agency reasonably determined that even if Ou did engage
in resistance to China’s family planning policy, he failed to
demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of that resistance. See
Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 313 (citing Matter of S-L-L, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 1, 10 (B.I.A. 2005)). Nothing in the record compels the
conclusion that Ou’s arrest, detention, and mistreatment upon his
repatriation to China were as a result of his resistance to China’s
population control policy as opposed to his violation of the country’s
immigration laws. See Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962 F.2d 234,
239 (2d Cir. 1992) (“[P]unishment for violation of a generally
applicable criminal law is not persecution.”).

Because Ou’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief were
based on the same factual predicate as his asylum claim, and the BIA
reasonably found that he was unable to meet his burden for asylum, he
was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed
on his claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
Dep’t. of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we
have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any
pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LIAN YING ZHANG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S.
LIAN YING ZHANG, Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. 08-4563.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 18, 2009.
Opinion filed: January 6, 2010.
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
OPINION
PER CURIAM.

Lian Ying Zhang petitions for review of the October 27, 2008 decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we
will deny her petition for review.

Zhang, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States
without inspection in April 2000. In 2005, when she was pregnant with
her second child, Zhang applied for asylum, withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that she
feared returning to China because she had a Chinese son (now in his
twenties who remained in China) and would soon have a second child in
violation of China’s one-child family planning policies.[ 1 ] Zhang
filed a tome of documents in support of her claim, including birth
certificates for her children, Fujian Province Birth Control
Regulations and Fujian Province administrative opinions and decisions
from 2003 regarding the treatment of foreign-born children for family
planning purposes in the cities of Changle and Fuzhou in Fujian
Province, numerous articles, affidavits (including the affidavit of
demographer Dr. John Aird), transcripts of Congressional testimony,
the State Department’s 2002 “Travel Tips,” and the State Department
Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China for 2005 (“2005
Country Report”).

Following a hearing, the IJ denied all relief, finding that Zhang
failed to demonstrate that she held a well-founded fear of
persecution. Specifically, the IJ found that although Zhang had
established through testimony, affidavits, and other evidence that she
had a genuine subjective fear of persecution upon her return to China,
she failed to show that she had an objectively reasonable fear that
she would be forcibly sterilized. The IJ noted Zhang’s evidence
purporting to show that she would have to register her American-born
child in China, including the affidavit of one individual, unknown to
Zhang personally, who returned to Fujian Province with two
foreign-born children and was forced to undergo sterilization. Relying
on the State Department’s Profile of Asylum Claims for China for 2005
(“2005 Profile”), and an opinion letter dated January 7, 2007, from
Julieta Valls Noyes, Director of the State Department’s Office of
Multilateral and Global Affairs (“2007 Opinion Letter”), the IJ
decided that “the matter of whether [Zhang’s] U.S. child will even be
counted against her total for family planning purposes is, at best,
disputed.” The IJ was unpersuaded that Zhang would be singled out for
persecution if she returned to China. The IJ found the affidavits of
Zhang’s cousins, attesting that they had been forcibly sterilized
after having two children, to be largely irrelevant because these
individuals did not have foreign-born children.

The IJ also found that Zhang failed to show that Fujian Province
engaged in a pattern or practice of forced sterilization in cases like
her own. The IJ found the bulk of Zhang’s documentary evidence to be
unpersuasive because it was outdated, addressed circumstances in a
different province, had been discredited (as in the case of the Aird
Affidavit), or because it did not tend to show that Fujian Province
engaged in mandatory forced sterilization or abortion as opposed to
assessing “social compensation fees” against violators of family
planning policy. While the IJ acknowledged that the State Department’s
2002 “Travel Tips” document stated that American-born children would
be treated as Chinese citizens if their Chinese parents had no
immigration status in the United States, she noted that the document
did not address specifically whether the children would be “counted”
against the parents for family planning purposes. Relying again on the
2005 Profile and the 2007 Opinion Letter, the IJ found that, in any
event, the record evidence “pointed to a marked decrease in
enforcement of the family planning policy through forced abortion
and/or sterilization and does not indicate that there is pattern or
practice of sterilizing individuals who return to China after having
children in the United States.
” (IJ Opinion, JA-15.)[ 2 ] The BIA
adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Zhang filed this timely
petition for review.

We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of the BIA
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d
Cir. 2001). “[W]hen the BIA both adopts the findings of the IJ and
discusses some of the bases for the IJ’s decision, we have authority
to review the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA.” Chen v. Ashcroft,
376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). We review both decisions under a
substantial evidence standard. See Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477,
483 (3d Cir. 2001). Under this deferential standard of review, we will
uphold the findings of the BIA “unless the evidence not only supports
a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. at 484.

To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate, among other
things, a well-founded fear of persecution based on both a
subjectively genuine fear of persecution and an objectively reasonable
possibility of persecution. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-31 (1987). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an
applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” See
Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1238 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting INS v.
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).

In her petition for review, Zhang claims that the IJ mischaracterized
the evidence, which, Zhang asserts, established that she would be
subject to forced sterilization if she returned to China with her
American-born child
. We disagree. According to the 2005 Profile and
the 2007 Opinion Letter upon which the IJ and the BIA relied, birth
planning policy in China is established nationally; the enforcement of
the policy is left to the provinces and local villages and can vary
widely from province to province and from village to village. (See
JA-1366; 1410.) The State Department acknowledges that forced
sterilization and abortions, which violate national law, continue to
be documented
.[ 3 ] (JA at 1367-68; 1410.) As for enforcement of birth
planning policy in Fujian Province, however, although “public and
other pressure” may be used to encourage compliance with birth
planning laws, United States officials “did not find any cases of
physical force employed in connection with abortion or sterilization”
in the last ten years. (2005 Profile, JA at 1370; 2007 Opinion Letter,
JA at 1410 (“Regarding the alleged existence of an official government
policy mandating the sterilization of one partner of couples that have
given birth to two children, U.S. officials in China are not aware of
such a policy at either the national or provincial level”)). In sum,
we conclude that the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions are supported by
substantial evidence.

Zhang also protests that the assessment of harsh and exorbitant social
compensation fees alone constitutes persecution in her case. The BIA
implicitly rejected Zhang’s argument when it concluded that she failed
to show a well-founded fear of persecution and affirmed the IJ’s
removal order. The BIA has addressed economic sanctions in Fujian
Province and has found that, at most, an alien would face “moderate
economic impact” not amounting to persecution. In re J-W-S-, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 185, 191 (BIA 2007); Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 164 (2d
Cir. 2008) (finding that the BIA in J-W-S- reasonably concluded that
the economic rewards and penalties used to implement the family
planning policy in Fujian Province did not necessarily amount to
“physical or mental coercion”). Here, Zhang offered no evidence
indicating that Fujian Province would impose more stringent and
punitive economic sanctions in her case than the moderate sanctions
Fujian Province normally imposes on its residents who violate the
family planning policy. The State Department documents on record
indicate only that Fujian Province imposes economic sanctions where
foreign-born children are registered as permanent residents. (See 2005
Profile, JA at 1374; 2007 Opinion Letter, JA at 1411.)[ 4 ] Thus,
there is simply nothing in the record that would compel us to conclude
that economic sanctions, if any, that Fujian Province might impose on
Zhang would be so exorbitant as to amount to persecution. Cf. Li v.
Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 168 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[T]he deliberate
imposition of severe economic disadvantage which threatens a
petitioner’s life or freedom may constitute persecution.”).
Next, Zhang contends that the BIA failed to properly consider the
documents she submitted at the immigration hearing in support of her
claim.[ 5 ] Contrary to her assertion, the BIA “is not required to
`write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely
that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
and thought and not merely reacted.'” Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241,
256 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Mansour v. INS, 230 F.3d 902, 908 (7th
Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted)). Here, the BIA acknowledged
the voluminous record in Zhang’s case and properly concluded that it
was insufficient to carry her burden of proof.

Zhang also argues that the BIA failed to remand her case to the IJ to
consider several documents that Zhang submitted for the first time on
appeal. The BIA declined to consider the additional documents, noting
that its review was “limited to the record as was constituted before
the Immigration Judge.” See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i) and (iv)
(“Except for taking administrative notice of commonly known facts such
as current events or the contents of official documents, the Board
will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals.”).
We cannot fault the BIA for not considering a remand to the IJ for
consideration of the additional documents, as Zhang did not file a
motion to remand, and mentioned “remand” only once in her brief before
the BIA.[ 6 ] See Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 1994)
(“Discretionary decisions of the BIA will not be disturbed unless they
are found to be `arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.'”)
(quoting Chun Chung v. INS, 602 F.2d 608, 612 (3d Cir. 1998)).
Moreover, Zhang has not explained (either before us or to the BIA) why
the additional documents she submitted on appeal to the BIA were not
previously available or how the evidence, if considered, would change
the result in her case. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to
reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board
that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.”).

In sum, we cannot say that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary
to that of the BIA. See Yu v. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 346, 348-49
(holding that State Department Country Reports constituted substantial
evidence supporting the BIA’s finding that petitioner’s fear of forced
sterilization upon returning to China
was not objectively reasonable);
Chen, 376 F.3d at 223 (requiring asylum applicant to demonstrate by
“credible, direct, and specific evidence an objectively reasonable
basis for the claimed fear of persecution”). Accordingly, we will deny
the petition for review.

1. Zhang gave birth to her daughter, Zoe Chen, in 2006.

2. In the opinion, the IJ mistakenly referred to the 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims as “Exhibit 10.”

3. In Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007), the BIA
discussed at length the State Department’s 2005 and 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims and its 2005 and 2006 Country Reports on China. The 2006
State Department Asylum Claims Profile and Country Report are not in
evidence in Zhang’s case.

4. In Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007), the BIA
discussed at length the State Department’s 2005 and 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims and its 2005 and 2006 Country Reports on China. The 2006
State Department Asylum Claims Profile and Country Report are not in
evidence in Zhang’s case.

5. Among other evidence she claims the BIA failed to consider, Zhang
emphasizes Dr. Aird’s affidavit and accompanying materials.
(Petitioner’s Brief at 18-20.) In Yu v. Attorney General, 513 F.3d
346, 348-49 (3d Cir. 2008), we agreed with the BIA that the State
Department’s Profile of Asylum Claims and its Country Report on China,
both issued in 2005, tended to cast doubt on the utility of Dr. Aird’s
frequently-cited affidavit, which provided only generalized statements
regarding China’s family planning policies and did not specifically
address the issue of couples returning to China with foreign-born
children.

6. We note that twenty-one of the thirty documents contained in the
“new background material” appear to be in the record already. (Compare
background-index, JA at 90-97, with indices of documents submitted at
the removal hearing, JA at 1662-1665 & 1264-65.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YI MEI ZHU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S.
YI MEI ZHU; JIE JIANG, Petitioners,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent.
No. 09-1254.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 5, 2010.
Filed: January 13, 2010.
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.

Yi Mei Zhu (lead respondent) and her husband, Jie Jiang (derivative
respondent) petition for review of the final removal order issued by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of Zhu’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under
the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons
set forth below, we will deny the petition.

We highlight only those facts that are pertinent to our analysis. Zhu
and Jiang, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China,
come from that country’s Fujian Province. They entered the United
States without valid visas or other entry documents. They conceded
removability and requested asylum, withholding of removal, relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure.
According to their testimony, Zhu and Jiang were married in a
traditional ceremony in 1995, but they could not register the marriage
with the government because Jiang was underage. Consequently, when Zhu
became pregnant in May 1995, she went into hiding to avoid the Fujian
Province family planning authorities. In November 1995, the
authorities tracked her down and took her to a local hospital against
her will where she received an injection to induce labor. She was then
transported immediately to the Fouchou City Hospital where she aborted
the pregnancy. Zhu was discharged from the hospital three days later.
Zhu and Jiang registered their marriage in March 1996 and, in February
1997, Zhu had a son. The family planning authorities forced Zhu to
have an intra-uterine device (IUD) inserted after their son’s birth.
When Zhu and Jiang decided to have a second child, they fled to avoid
China’s coercive family planning policies. Once in the United States,
Zhu had her IUD removed. Their second child was born in the United
States in 2004.

In support of her allegation that she underwent a forced abortion, Zhu
submitted her out-patient medical record from Fouchou City Hospital.

The Government submitted a State Department investigative report
indicating, among other things, that the contents of the out-patient
record were fabricated.[ 1 ] The Report was based on a certification
by the Deputy Director of the Fouchou City Hospital that the patient
record number “00025145” was not used in 1995; induced abortions could
not be done on an out-patient basis; standard medical terminology was
not used in the record; and the doctor or mid-wife whose signature
appeared on the document never worked at the hospital. (J.A . at 307.)
The IJ denied asylum relief as untimely and denied withholding of
removal and CAT relief because Zhu failed to show that she was
entitled to relief. The IJ cited certain evidentiary inconsistencies
and contradictions that had “a severe impact on the respondent’s
[Zhu’s] credibility.” (J.A. 37.) First, she noted inconsistencies in
the testimonies of Zhu’s husband and her sister concerning Zhu’s and
Jiang’s arrival in the United States. Second, the IJ found that the
investigative report, which indicated that Zhu’s out-patient medical
record was fabricated, seriously undermined her testimony about a
forced abortion in November 1995. The IJ thus concluded that, absent
credible evidence, Zhu failed to show that she had suffered past
persecution.

The IJ also found that Zhu failed to show a well-founded fear of
future persecution based on the State Department’s 2004 Country Report
on Human Rights Practices in China (2004 Country Report), which
indicated that China allowed couples to have two children if the
births were separated by a period of years. Noting that there was a
seven-year gap between the births of Zhu’s two children, the IJ
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the
respondents would be forcibly sterilized in China for having a second
child in the United States. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s untimeliness
determination as to asylum and her adverse credibility determination
as to all claims for relief, concluding that Zhu failed to meet her
burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief.

In most cases, we have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal
involving the denial of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). However, 8
U.S.C. § 1158 provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review
any determination regarding the timeliness of an asylum application
and the applicability of the exceptions. See Tarrawally v. Ashcroft,
338 F.3d 180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 2003). Under the REAL ID Act, we have
jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, but
not factual or discretionary determinations related to the timeliness
of an asylum application. Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 634
(3d Cir. 2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Zhu has not raised any legal
or constitutional claims regarding the IJ’s determination that her
asylum claim was untimely.[ 2 ] Because we lack jurisdiction to
consider her asylum application for timeliness, our review is limited
to issues relating to the denial of withholding of removal and relief
under the CAT.

To be eligible for withholding of removal, Zhu must demonstrate that
it is more likely than not that her life would be threatened in China
on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion. Tarrawally, 338 F.3d at 186; 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). To be eligible for CAT relief, Zhu must
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured
if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

When, as here, the BIA substantially relies on the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination, the Court reviews the decisions of both the
IJ and the BIA. Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). We
may reverse the BIA’s decision only if the record permits but one
reasonable conclusion that was not the one reached by the Board.
I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The IJ’s adverse
credibility finding must be upheld unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. Fiadjoe v. Attorney
General, 411 F.3d 135, 153 (3d Cir. 2005). Only inconsistencies going
to the heart of the claims will be deemed to compromise credibility.[
3 ] Chukwu v. Attorney General, 484 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2007).
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. Zhu testified that Fujian Province Family Planning
authorities forced her to have an abortion very late in her pregnancy
in 1995, but she submitted a fabricated out-patient medical record as
corroborating proof. Her submission of a false document to support her
claim wholly undermined her credibility.
For this reason alone, a
reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to conclude that the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding was erroneous. See Tarrawally, 338 F.3d at
187 (holding that an adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence, even where only some of the stated bases are
appropriate).[ 4 ]

Citing Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2004),[ 5 ]
she argues that the record lacks any evidence from which a reasonable
factfinder could infer that Zhu knew that the out-patient medical
record was fabricated. (Pet. Br. at 7-8.) The Government counters that
we lack jurisdiction to consider Zhu’s argument because she failed to
present it before the BIA. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited under §
242(d)(1) of the INA, to cases where the petitioner “has exhausted all
administrative remedies available as of right . . . .” 8 U.S.C. §
1252(d)(1); see Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 594-95 (3d Cir.
2003). A petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies if he
raises all issues before the BIA. Based on the notice of appeal and
Zhu’s brief before the BIA, we conclude that the BIA was not given
sufficient notice of Zhu’s claim that she was unaware that the medical
record was falsified. See Lin v. Attorney General, 543 F.3d 114, 121
(3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the
unexhausted claim.

Zhu also argues that the IJ erred in giving the investigative report
“enormous weight,” thereby failing to consider her credibility based
on her testimony and demeanor. We disagree. By crediting the State
Department’s investigative report, the IJ necessarily rejected Zhu’s
testimony that someone at Fouchou City Hospital gave her the
out-patient record personally while she was at the hospital and that
she kept the record in her special drawer for important documents in
her home in China, where it remained until her relatives retrieved it
and sent it to the United States at her request. (J.A. at 279-81.)
Even if Zhu’s demeanor was exemplary, faced with such contradictory
evidence, the IJ had to accept one piece of evidence and reject the
other. Here, there is substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s
conclusion to credit the investigative report.[ 6 ] Hence, we are not
compelled to conclude that the IJ erred.

With respect to her well-founded fear of persecution claim, we agree
with the BIA that Zhu failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that
it is more likely than not that she or her husband would be sterilized
upon their return to China. The 2004 State Department Country Report
for China supports the conclusion that Zhu failed to show that her
fear of sterilization was objectively reasonable. See Yu v. Attorney
General, 513 F.3d 346, 348-49 (3d Cir. 2008); In re C-C-, 23 I. & N.
Dec. 899, 901-04 (BIA 2006) (concluding that, without additional
evidence to the contrary, recent State Department Country Reports
indicate that petitioner’s claimed fear of sterilization was not
reasonable). Zhu’s testimony provided no evidence contradicting the
Country Report.

Based on the foregoing, we concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding was amply supported by the record, and thus will not upset the
IJ’s determination that Zhu was not entitled to withholding of removal
or for relief under the CAT. We further conclude that the IJ’s
determination that Zhu failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
persecution was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we
will deny the petition for review.

1. The Report also verified the authenticity of the “periodic
gynecological examination certificate” Zhu submitted to support her
claim that her IUD was inserted by Family Planning authorities in
China, and noted the examiners’ unsuccessful attempts to authenticate
a letter from her husband’s employer. (J.A. at 306.)

2. The IJ ruled that Zhu failed to show that her asylum application
was timely based on “the obvious contradictions between the male’s
[Jiang’s] testimony and the testimony of the witness [Bo Yuan Zhu] and
the total lack of documentation [like an airplane ticket stub]
regarding the arrival of the female respondent [Zhu] into the United
States.” (J.A. 37) In her brief, Zhu claimed that the IJ erred as a
matter of fact in discrediting the evidence as to timeliness.

3. Section 101(a)(3) of the REAL ID Act “applies only to cases where
the applicant applied for asylum or other relief after May 11, 2005,”
and accordingly does not apply in this case. Chukwu v. Attorney
General, 484 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2007).

4. Although it does not change the result in this case, we note that,
in making an adverse credibility determination, the IJ inappropriately
relied on inconsistencies in testimony pertaining to the timeliness of
Zhu’s asylum application. These inconsistencies clearly do not go to
the heart of her past persecution claim.

5. In Yeimane-Berhe, the Ninth Circuit held that an IJ’s adverse
credibility finding based solely on a fraudulent medical record was
not supported by substantial evidence where there was no evidence that
the petitioner knew that the record was fabricated and nothing else in
the record suggested that the petitioner was not credible. 393 F.3d at
911-13.

6. Zhu’s assertion that the IJ should have taken into account the fact
that Chinese officials would not be willing to confirm that
persecution had occurred, is belied by the Chinese authorities
willingness to confirm the authenticity of the periodic gynecological
examination.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ZAI XIANG CHEN v. HOLDER
ZAI XIANG CHEN, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,[ 1 ] Respondent.
No. 08-6085-ag-NAC.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 11, 2010.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Aviva L. Poczter, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Christopher P. McGreal, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.
Zai Xiang Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, seeks review of a November 20, 2008 order of the BIA, affirming
the June 1, 2001 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) John Opaciuch,
which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zai Xiang
Chen, No. A076 388 443 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2008), aff’g No. A076 388 443
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 1, 2001). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as
the final agency determination. Yu Sheng Zhang v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 362 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 2004). The applicable standards of
review are well-established. See Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 379
(2d Cir. 2007); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2008).

Chen asserts that he is eligible for relief from removal because his
wife was forced to undergo an abortion and to use an intrauterine
device.
It is unnecessary to examine the IJ’s credibility findings in
connection with this claim because even if such findings were flawed,
remand would be futile. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480
F.3d 104, 117 (2d Cir. 2007). We can predict with confidence that the
agency would reach the same result upon reconsideration of Chen’s
claim, because, pursuant to our decision in Shi Liang Lin v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 314 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc), Chen is
not per se eligible for asylum based on his wife’s alleged
persecution.

Shi Liang Lin clarified that the spouse of a person who has been
forced to undergo a forced abortion or sterilization may qualify for
refugee status if he or she demonstrates past persecution or fear of
future persecution based on “other resistance to a coercive population
control program.”
494 F.3d at 314; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Before the IJ, Chen alleged that he quarreled with family planning
officials after they forced his wife to submit to an abortion, and
that the authorities wanted to arrest him as a result.
We do not
address whether such conduct could qualify as other resistance because
substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Chen’s
testimony with respect to the quarrel was not credible.
Notably,
Chen’s statements during his credible fear interview regarding the
circumstances of his escape from family planning officials were
inconsistent with his testimony before the IJ. Moreover, the IJ did
not err in finding sufficiently reliable the record of Chen’s credible
fear interview, which consisted of a verbatim transcript. See Ming
Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 722-26 (2d Cir. 2009).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we
have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any
pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

Other Items on CHINA- Here –

In an article in China’s People Daily entitled, China’s population policy draws wide praise September 29, 2009

Gill Greer, director-general of the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation, told Xinhua that the family planning policy (of China) has contributed a great deal to China’s remarkable economic and social achievements over the past 30 years.

By adopting the population control policy, Greer said, China has reduced its population growth rate and alleviated problems from overpopulation.

“Thus, the policy is very conducive to China’s development in various aspects such as economy, education and health care services,” she said.

Perhaps a look at the beginnings of Planned Parenthood and their ties to Eugenics will explain their ability to turn the other way while women loose “Choice” in China – Watch Maafa21 for details (Clip Below)

READ: Social Justice on Immigration? Except for forced abortion victims- Board of Immigration again denies asylum

READ: Baby Almost Cremated Alive : Aborted baby cries before cremation

READ: China hunts down thousands to sterilize, Planned Parenthood calls policy a contributor to, “China’s remarkable economic and social achievement”

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/14/

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/16/

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/18/

Will NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood or Obama support this rally? China’s One-Child Policy protest Sept 25th

Posted in Abortion, China One Child Policy, Feticide, forced abortion, gendercide, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 21, 2011 by saynsumthn

31st Anniversary of One-Child Policy Sparks U.S. Protests, Vigils Led By Tiananmen Square Commander-In-Chief

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — ***Sept. 25: Anniversary of China’s One-Child Policy***
Sept. 22 – Oct. 4: Chai Ling–Revolutionary, Nobel Prize Nominee, Harvard MBA–Leads Nationwide Remembrances, Testifies Before Congress and Releases Memoir Banned in China

“Chai Ling is one of the most courageous women I know … . from her early days as a self-possessed student thrust suddenly onto the worldwide stage to her current role as a fierce defender of women and girls.” — Cindi Leive, editor-in-chief, Glamour magazine

“Sept. 25, 2011 marks the continuation of China’s ‘gendercide‘ ‘war on girls,’ ” said Chai Ling, the woman who, at age 23, was the commander-in-chief of the 1989 Tiananmen Square student rebellion. On this 31st anniversary, Ling–now a U.S. citizen exiled from China–continues her fight against China’s human rights atrocities by leading a U.S. protest and nationwide campaign against the One-Child Policy.

Ling and two other witnesses will testify Sept. 22 for the Congressional Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights to share stories of coerced abortions at the hands of the Chinese government, some 37,000 per day according to China’s National Family Planning Commission.

While in Washington, Ling will participate at a Sept. 23 rally, “37 Seconds of Silence,” part of a nationwide vigil organized by her advocacy group All Girls Allowed. Sept. 22- 25, more than 200 universities and churches nationwide–including Harvard, Northeastern and Notre Dame–will host 37-second vigils of silence to honor the 37 million girls* missing, through infanticide, abortion or abandonment, due to the Chinese law.

“It is this generation’s responsibility to speak up, and students are beginning to see that,” said Ling. “The good news is, with this kind of momentum, we believe that we can end ‘gendercide’ in our lifetime.”

A victim of China’s One-Child Policy, Ling only recently gained enough closure to share her full story in A Heart for Freedom, which reveals the truth behind her role in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, her status as one of the most-wanted women in China, her own experience with government-forced abortion, and how she escaped to America. Banned from the very country she has long fought to save, Ling’s human rights work has resulted in two nominations for a Nobel Peace Prize and recognition by Glamour magazine as “Woman of the Year.”

MEDIA OPPORTUNITIES:
Sept. 22: Open Congressional Hearing in Washington, 2:00 p.m. Rayburn House Office Building, room 220
Sept. 23: Ling at “37 Seconds of Silence” Vigil, George Washington University,
Can facilitate interview with participating student, Elliot School of International Affairs, room 505
Sept. 22-25: Some 200 “37 Second of Silence” nationwide vigils remembering 37 million missing girls in China
Sept. 22-24 Interview Opportunity: Ling available for interview in Washington
Oct. 4 Memoir Release in U.S. – Banned in China: A Heart for Freedom (Tyndale, Oct. 2011)
Oct. 4-5 Interview Opportunity: Ling available for interview in New York

China’s One-Child Policy
The One-Child Policy, which limits Chinese families to having just one child, was established in 1980 as a response to an exploding Chinese population. Due to the Chinese preference for male children, sex-selective abortions, female infanticide and the abandonment of female children has become an integral part of Chinese culture over the last 31 years.

Groups wishing to hold a moment of silence ceremony can register at the All Girls Allowed website. A map of vigil locations is available.

Chai Ling is the founder of All Girls Allowed and founding president and chief operating officer of Jenzabar, Inc., a leading higher education software and services provider. She holds a M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, a M.L.A. in public affairs at Princeton University and a B.A. from Beijing University. Ling also established the Jenzabar Foundation, which supports inspirational humanitarian efforts of student leaders through grant opportunities. A key student leader herself in the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement, Ling was subsequently named Glamour Woman of the Year and nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize. Ling is author of the new book A Heart for Freedom. The hardcover memoir will release on Oct. 4, available nationwide.

All Girls Allowed aims to end gender discrimination in China through eradicating “gendercide” and assisting families who have baby girls, providing education and scholarships to abandoned girls, rescuing children from human trafficking and providing legal advocacy to mothers who have been victims of forced abortions or sterilization.
*Source: All Girls Allowed

September 22, Reggie Littlejohn will testify before Congress

Liu Dan was 21 years old and 9 months pregnant when family planning police grabbed her out of her home, dragged her to the local family planning office, and forcibly aborted her full term baby. They already knew from medical tests that she had high blood pressure and that a forced late term abortion would be dangerous for her. After the forced abortion, she lay alone and unconscious in an operating room in the family planning center. Sensing something was wrong, her fiancé burst into the room at 3:00 a.m. to find her bleeding from the eyes, nose, ears and mouth. Even so, the family planning police refused to call for emergency help, until her family insisted. Help arrived too late. Liu Dan died, along with her full term baby.

“The One Child Policy causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on earth. It is China’s war on women,” says Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. “Any discussion of women’s rights, or human rights, would be a charade if forced abortion in China is not front and center. It does not matter whether you are pro-life or pro-choice on this issue. No one supports forced abortion, because it is not a choice. The Chinese forced abortion policy is systematic, institutionalized violence against women.”

Ms. Littlejohn will be among those testifying for the Committee on Foreign Affairs Congressional Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, on September 22 at 2:00 in Room 2200 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

In addition, she will testify regarding blind activist lawyer Chen Guangcheng, who exposed the fact that there were 130,000 forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations in Linyi County in 2005. The Chinese Communist Party imprisoned Chen for four years and has kept him and his family under strict house arrest since September, 2010. On February 9, 2011 Chen released a video describing the deplorable conditions of his house arrest. The next morning, Chen and his wife, Yuan Weijing, were “beaten senseless.” Chen’s family recently was moved to a “personal prison” build for them.

“This treatment of Chen is unconscionable. It shows the appalling lengths to which the CCP will go to silence a hero who has spoken up against forced abortion in China.”

Praising China’s Forced Abortion Policy is: Former Planned Parenthood director !

Posted in Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood China's One Child Policy with tags , , , , , , on August 10, 2011 by saynsumthn

An ex- Planned Parenthood director who worked in several Planned Parenthood centers and the Tides Center, praises China’s One Child Policy in an editorial piblished today.

Norman Fleishman, who once co-authored an article that wrote, “Our mission really began in 1966 when then AHA Executive Director Toby McCarroll (who we had worked with as assistant director in Yellow Springs, Ohio, in 1964) directed us to the national office of Planned Parenthood. We worked in the New York City office, then took a position directing the PP of Houston, Texas, and subsequently ran the PP chapter in Los Angeles, California. In this latter assignment we were fortunate to break bread with Lear–who was then producing the television series All in the Family–and suggest to him that he give “Meathead” (Archie’s son-in-law) a vasectomy. Lear said, “Let’s talk about it,” so we set up an evening at his home. We invited international family planning consultant Donald A. Collins and renowned birth-control authority Leonard Laufe to join us. During dinner, Lear’s questions were answered and it was clear he loved the idea… At Lear’s suggestion and with his assistance, we formed Microsecond–a nonprofit organization under the auspices of the Tides Center in San Francisco, California.

Praising China’s Forced Abortion Policies in this Op-Ed below from the Napa Valley Register-

World’s increasing population presents today’s real threat Tuesday, August 9, 2011 12:00 am

The Obama administration’s mandate that all health plans must provide to women, with no charge, all government-approved contraceptives, has already reignited debate on the federal role in health care.
Ah, how I remember “Every child a wanted child,” our motto at Planned Parenthood. And I do welcome this legislation.
Half the pregnancies in America are “accidental.” Increasingly younger, unmarried women (or, as we might say, “girls”) find themselves mothers for life — long before they have an inkling of parenthood’s titanic, endless consequences.
When I began this work 50 years ago, television barely touched the subject. Today it is drenched with it. Daily shows on major networks hone in on this subject, howling with comments like: “Rodney, you ARE the father!” (How would you get along, born to a 13-year-old mother and no father?)
Global population numbers having just passed the 7 billion mark (twice what it was when I opened a vasectomy clinic in Texas), it is overwhelming to contemplate the world struggling with this flood and its inevitable threats (including starvation, drought, pollution — and what leading scientists predicted long ago would be the main danger to civilization: war).
Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.

Norman Fleishman

Ingram to Diane Francis on China’s One Child Forced Abortion Policy “Save the Planet-Abort the Babies”

Posted in Abortion, birth control, China One Child Policy, Civil Rights, climate change, compulsory birth control, Copenhagen, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization with tags , , , , , , , on December 17, 2009 by saynsumthn

Book Reveals Fetal Soup Served in Chinese Restaurants
The Seven Sorrows of China gives heart-wrenching accounts of the brutality of China’s one-child policy

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

February 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dr. Mark Miravalle’s sobering book, The Seven Sorrows of China, gives, in heart-wrenching detail, accounts of the brutality of the one-child policy and its effects on the Chinese people.

Dr. Miravalle’s account of his often intense experiences as he travels through modern China provides a disturbingly realistic picture of life outside of Beijing.

The following is an excerpt from Part III of Dr. Miravalle’s book, entitled The Third Sorrow: Abortion Without Conscience: The Indoctrination of a Nation:

“The most alarming,” he writes, “the most depressing, the most Copernican revelation of all that I have been exposed to (including the yet more grisly examples to follow), is the repeated refrain that the great majority of the people in China have lost any concept that there is anything at all wrong with having an abortion. It is considered less significant than a flu shot, a minor procedure like going to the dentist, a simple solution to a simple problem that doesn’t merit any soul searching for any alternative plans.

“China has become a nation who without conscience aborts their own future generations. And this is Satan’s ultimate victory here. Is this conscience loss regarding the transcendent dignity and inherent right of human life to be blamed exclusively on atheistic Communism? Have not the recent influences of Western morals of secular humanism, materialism, hedonism, and ultimately unmitigated egoism, also contributed to this Chinese terrorism of the womb? In any case, the combination amounts to self-inflicted Chinese genocide, which so saddens the God that creates and loves the ethnical uniqueness of China.

“New macabre manifestations of this conscienceless abortion mentality include the recent opening of five restaurants in the region of X, which began serving ‘fetal soup’ at the price of 300 Yuan (approximately $40) a bowl! Recent medical publications have praised the exceptional health benefits for the consuming of ‘fetal remains’ (this jargon allows them to overlook what this really is-unborn baby bodies). Therefore, local entrepreneurs jumped on the opportunity to distribute this new health breakthrough to the chosen few who could afford the price. So evil and scandalous is this fetal soup trade that the Government shut down the Web sites advertising the restaurants, in fear that they would scandalize the reputation of the People’s Republic to outside countries and businesses.

“Is it possible that the abortion holocaust and its rejection of life’s sacred dignity has also contributed to the recent practice of ‘ghost wives,’ as recently reported in Chinese news sources? This is the practice of providing a woman’s dead body to be buried with a deceased man so that the man will have company in the ‘next life.’ Distributors of the dead bodies of women found that men were willing to pay much more for a ‘new’ dead body of a woman, rather than one previously preserved. Murder of women from out-of-the-way places ensued to fill the new demand for the fresh ghost wives.

“When human life in the womb is not safe, no human life is safe. How can China regain the natural law dictates of conscience that tells every human heart that it is always wrong to directly kill an innocent human being, regardless of race, religion, health, age or location, including the womb (historically man’s most secure location, and now his most dangerous)? Through God, through prayer, through education, and through the witness of individual heroes, saving one person, one unborn child, at a time.

This part of the book also goes on to describe more of the process of the one-child policy:”A certificate of permission is required to have a baby in a Chinese hospital. The government tells you how many children you can have and when. In the city, married couples are limited to one child. In the farming regions a family, if the first child is a girl, can sometimes be permitted to try for a boy as a second child because of the need for boys on the farm. Even in this case, the government will control when they can try for the boy, with the requirement that it be at least five years after the first child. The government also uses psychological pressure to keep the policy. If a couple in the country have only one child, then this child will probably be able to have two children. The policy varies from region to region.

“A couple must go to the hospital with their permission certificate to deliver their child. If they arrive at the hospital without the permission certificate, hospital officials contact the Population Police. At this point, the Police decide, based on the circumstances of the family and the history of the couple, what is to be the fate of the family. The child will be injected with poison on the spot. Or the couple will be fined and their home burnt down. Or the couple could lose their jobs, and in some cases, cause the loss of their employees’ jobs (one teacher told me that if his wife didn’t abort her second child, he and the school principal would both lose their jobs). One Protestant woman refused to abort her second child and lost her own job at the hospital she worked at. Still another possibility is that the child does not receive official recognition that it exists and does not receive the ‘Chinese Social Security Card.’ The child therefore is not technically a citizen, nor can he or she go to school or participate in any right of a citizen. One remedy is to try to find a retired and sympathetic midwife who can deliver the child at home. This saves the baby’s life, but does not guarantee his registration”.

The Seven Sorrows of China by Dr. Mark Miravalle is available from the publisher: Queenship Publishing Company (http://www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=3102), other online booksellers, and Christian book stores.

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

Posted in Abortion, birth control in water, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Civil Rights, climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Eugenics, Holdren, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Socialism, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Uncategorized, United Nations with tags , , , , , , on December 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.”

With the recent Copenhagen push for Population Control and the embraceable of China’s One Child Policy – could Holdren have predicted the increase of taxing children?

READ THIS FOR MORE DETAILS Inconvenient Eugenicist, forced abortions and population control pushed in Copenhagen

In the 1970’s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion.

Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Harrison suggested that infanticide was a legitimate form of population control when he wrote this in his book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, from page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…

In an article entitled: The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects: by Holdren, Ehrlich and Gretchen C. Daily

It appears that Holdren and his company are suggesting that you can sacrifice some humans to save the “environment” ”

From the Footnotes: 7. Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).

This is no surprise to me and I fully expect that in the push to save “Mother Earth” all “Human Mothers” will be vilified ! Population Control, Eugenics, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, all run together and all seem to attract the same type of people.

SOME HISTORY :

Many people are not aware of the fact that State GOVERNMENTS within the United States openly supported Eugenics. In fact, as early as 1907 Indiana had established the first GOVERNMENT “eugenics court” and the last GOVERNMENT Eugenics court was not closed until 1984, that was in Oregon. These Eugenics Courts, were GOVERNMENT Boards and they required the poor, the infirmed, “feebleminded” and minorities, which, included a large population of black people to appear before them to decide who could and could not pro-create. Remember, Eugenics Boards and GOVERNMENT Boards – were one in the same. Many of these underrepresented people groups were forcibly sterilized and coerced into birth control clinics in order to keep their GOVERNMENT welfare! Recently a well-documented film, called, Maafa21, produced by Life Dynamics in Denton, Texas, has exposed much of this abuse. You can get a copy here: http://www.maafa21.com. You can also google Eugenics in North Carolina, and read the GOVERNMENT documents which that state has opened up and get just a sneak peak of what a run-away GOVERNMENT board with this kind of power can do to people.

Preview of Maafa21:

One other important fact you may not be aware of is the history of the founding of the first group who fought for the legalization of Euthanasia. Most people are not aware that many of the exact same people who originally founded the idea of legalized euthanasia in the US, were the same ones who were on the Board of Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL). To examine this closer – all you have to do is get a copy of the New York Times from January 17,1938.

In 1938, just a few years prior to the American Birth Control League (ABCL) changing it’s name to Planned Parenthood, which today is the largest abortion provider in the nation, a group of American Eugenics Society Members and Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL) members got together and formed the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia. Heading this pro-euthanasia panel was a man by the name of Charles F. Potter who, in 1938 was also on the ABCL Committee for Planned Parenthood according to a February 1938, New York Times story. Potter was the leader of the First Humanist Society and organized this entire pro-euthanasia group.

Also on this pro-euthanasia board was: Sidney Goldstein who sat on the American Birth Control League’s National Council and later was on Planned Parenthood’s Board of Directors. Another member was Frank H. Hankins who was a managing editor for Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger’s newsletter called the Birth Control Review. Hankins was also an American Eugenics Society member. Another more famous name who was sat on the advisory board of this pro-euthanasia panel, was Julian Huxley, who was a later recipient of a Planned Parenthood award.

Mrs. F. Robertson Jones was also on this panel, she was an ABCL President, wrote for Sanger’s Birth Control Review , was an honorary board member of Planned Parenthood-World Population and a Board of Director of Planned Parenthood. ABCL Citizen’s Committee for Planned Parenthood member, Dr. Foster Kennedy, was also on the pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society Member, Clarence Cook Little, who was the President of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), at the same time he was on this pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society founder and friend to Margaret Sanger, Leon Whitney, also sat on this panel. Whitney advocated forced sterilization, was published in Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and openly praised Adolf Hitler for his Nazi effort. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger was not on this panel, but she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and many of their members were on this panel. Sanger admitted that she gave a speech to the Klu Klu Klan and in her autobiography , she bragged that she received a dozen invites from the Klan for further speeches. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest Population Control and some would say “Eugenics Control” organization and they receive millions of dollars from the US GOVERNMENT. Care to ask why????

It is important to know this because the “population Control” , “Zero Population Growth”, “Planned Parenthood” crowds are buzzing around this administration and have been heavily involved in government decision making for years. In fact, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood organization receives over $1 million dollars a day from the Government to sterilize and abort this so-called over-populated society. Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute , reports that Black Minorities receive 5 abortions to every 1 white baby aborted in this nation. Is this coincidence or a form of racist and eugenic targeting? ( Special Note: Alan Guttmacher was a Planned Parenthood President and was also a Vice President of the American Eugenics Society. ) Remember that when they removed the GOVERNMENT Eugenics Courts, they appear to have replaced them with Federal Funding of Population Control Groups, like Planned Parenthood.

Do you really believe that if we can form GOVERNMENT Eugenics Boards which forcibly sterilized thousand of Americans, murder 50 million unborn children through abortion with the blessing and funding of the GOVERNMENT to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and form euthanasia panels to legalize the act, that we would never have GOVERNMENT death panels? Then…think again !

PS – Holdren wasn’t the first to advocate adding sterilizing agents to the food and water supplies: Watch this clip from Maafa21

More: Fewer Kids, More Abortions, Better Environment

Also View: Robert Reich: Honest about Death Panels? “If you are very old – we’re gonna let you die !”

Elaine Riddick- Forcefully sterilized at the age of 14, full interview from the film: Maafa21:


America’s State of the Climate June 19,2009

Living in Earth – Interview with Obama Science Czar: John Holdren

CURWOOD: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley studios in Somerville, Massachusetts, this is Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood.

YOUNG: And I’m Jeff Young.

Back in 2007 it took a court order to get the Bush administration to follow a congressional mandate and issue a comprehensive report about climate change. But the Obama administration has embraced the opportunity enthusiastically.

Its 192-page report is called “The Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” It’s heavy on the science, but it lays out the challenges in dramatic, accessible language.

Thirteen government agencies collaborated on the effort, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is headed by Jane Lubchenco.

LUBCHENKO: First and foremost, human induced climate change is a reality not only in remote polar regions and in small tropical islands, but every place around the country in our own backyards. Climate change is happening and it’s happening now.

CURWOOD: Today the levels of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere are setting us on a course to make our planet hotter than it’s been in 800,000 years.

And the new report warns that if we do nothing the average surface temperature of the planet will continue to get even hotter, by as much as eleven degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

President Obama’s top science advisor, John Holdren, presented the report at the White House. Dr. Holdren is a noted climate expert who in this administration holds the same rank as the President’s National Security Advisor. In a far-ranging conversation, John Holdren was both cautious and upbeat about the future.

HOLDREN: Well I would say the report is clear – the climate is changing – that the impacts are already being felt. In that sense it is a stark report. And in the sense that the projections show all of these adverse impacts getting steadily worse over time, if climate change proceeds unabated, it’s a stark report. But it’s optimistic in the sense that it tells us that if we take appropriate actions to reduce the emissions of the heat trapping pollution that is the main driver of this problem, we can greatly reduce the amount of climate change and the damage from it that occur in the future. And the report is optimistic as well because it is showing the way to steps we can take to adapt to climate change in ways that will reduce the harm over time.

CURWOOD: If the world and the United States doesn’t address climate change, can you give me a couple of examples where people will really notice this.

HOLDREN
: Well first of all I would say we’re already noticing it. People are noticing changes in the growing seasons. They’re noticing the increased frequency of wildfires, the increased frequency of floods in the United States. So the place to start is that we really are already experiencing adverse effects of climate change. What we will see if climate change continues unabated is all of these kinds of symptoms that I’ve described will become more severe. I would say that people in the West are likely to notice increasing difficulties with water shortages. In the longer run, one of the most noticeable effects is likely to be the increase in sea level that comes from a warming world and that we’re already experiencing at a rate that is about twice the rate of sea level rise in the 20th century. You would have in some parts of the country where there might be ten or twenty days a year over 100 degrees Fahrenheit now, you would in the future with these large increases in average temperature, you might have 100 or 150 days a year that exceed what you might call the threshold of very, very hot that would have large impacts on agriculture.

Climate change will mean more droughts in the U.S. West, with some places likely to experience more than 100 days per year with temperatures higher than 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

CURWOOD: Impacts on agriculture? What do you mean?

HOLDREN: I mean the productivity of food crops would go down. You wouldn’t be able to grow as much corn or wheat on an acre of land as you can grow today because the heat stress on the plants would be damaging their capacity to grow and bear grain.

CURWOOD: Some people say look, we’re on this path, climate change is inevitable, we’re in it now, it’s simply gonna get worse and the sense comes up that it may just be too late to do anything. How accurate is that?

HOLDREN: I absolutely disagree that it’s too late to do anything. What the science shows above all is that the more climate change we get the more difficult it’s going to be to cope with it. And we have opportunities by acting now and in the future to drastically reduce the amount of climate change we’re gonna be experiencing. I mean this is a very simple proposition: more is worse, less is better. And we have the opportunity, by taking action, to make it less – that’s what we ought to be doing.

CURWOOD: What do we need to do?

HOLDREN: We need to be reducing the emissions of heat trapping pollution and above all that’s carbon dioxide from burning the fossil fuels from which we get most of our energy today, that is from burning coal and oil and natural gas. What we need to do is to use those fuels more efficiently so we don’t have to burn so much of them to get the goods and services that we need from energy. What we need to do is change the technologies we use to burn them so that we can capture a substantial part of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released and sequester it away from the atmosphere. We need to use more renewable technologies which don’t emit carbon dioxide or as in the case of sustainably grown biofuels, only emit as much carbon dioxide when they’re burned as they removed from the atmosphere when they were grown. We need to see if we can address the obstacles that have impeded the expansion of nuclear energy in this country and elsewhere because nuclear energy too is a way to get electricity that does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And we need to take steps to slow down and halt deforestation and other land use practices that are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere along with the burning of fossil fuels.

CURWOOD: Tell me: what are our range of options here? You’ve outlined how difficult things will be if we do nothing. If we do everything, do we still get to avoid more warming here?

HOLDREN: There is nothing that we can to do stop climate change in its tracks. There’s a tremendous amount of momentum built into the climate system. We are not yet experiencing the full consequences of the heat trapping gases we’re already added to the atmosphere, because of time lags in the way the global system responds. So we will see some continuing increase in global surface temperature and regional increases in surface temperatures no matter what we do. But, we have a big opportunity to minimize the amount of change we will experience. The aim that most scientists who study this matter have agreed is one that is still within reach and is highly desirable, would be to stabilize the concentration of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere at a level that would limit the global average surface temperature increase to about three and a half degrees Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial level. Now, if we do everything right, I think we can achieve that. And to tell you what that means, you really have to look at this, first of all, at the global level, because it is the global concentration of these heat-trapping pollutants that determine how much the temperature goes up.

CURWOOD: Now, as I understand it, between the United States and China, there are about 40 percent of the world’s emissions of carbon right now. And I also understand that you were in China with the negotiating team on the Global Climate Change Treaty recently. What do we need China to do in order to have a reasonable agreement on limiting greenhouse gases for the world?

HOLDREN: Well first of all it is correct that China and the United States are the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, and we do total something in the range of 40 percent of global emissions. And that means that there is no way that the problem can be solved without doing both of us taking very significant actions to reduce our emissions. The United States and China are both already doing a number of things to reduce their emissions but we need to do much more. And it has to be expected because the United States is an advanced industrialized country and China remains a developing country, that the United States along with the other industrial nations is going to have to do more sooner – my personal judgment would be that the United States and the other industrialized nations should peak no later than 2015 and be sharply declining in their emissions after that. And that China and other developing countries need to peak between 2020 and 2025, and be sharply declining after that.

CURWOOD: Assess for me the odds of President Obama going to Copenhagen at the conclusion of the current round of international negotiations on climate change. Will he be there do you think?

HOLDREN: I simply cannot comment on that. I just don’t know at this juncture. It will obviously depend on a whole array of issues in terms of what’s on the President’s plate at the time, and whether it appears that there would be a significant benefit from his going to Copenhagen. And I think it’s much to early to predict how that will come out.

CURWOOD: If the President didn’t go to Copenhagen, it would mean that the negotiations hadn’t worked. How dire would that be for the future of the planet and for those of us here in the United States, living under the conditions of climate change that you outline in your report?

HOLDREN: First of all, I’m not sure that the President not going would mean that negotiations had failed. It might mean the negotiations had succeeded without him and he didn’t need to go. He could simply celebrate the success from Washington. But the second thing I would say is we do need an agreement in Copenhagen. And we’re working very hard with our various international partners to make sure that that happens. But the most important single thing the United States can do is to get its own house in order by passing a comprehensive energy climate bill and having that legislation in place because that will demonstrate that the United States is finally prepared to take the leadership role that the world expects of us in addressing this challenge.

CURWOOD: So, there you are in the Executive Office Building. You’re at the White House. If for a moment, the proverbial magic wand was put in your hand to do anything about this, what would be the first thing you would do.

HOLDREN: The first thing I would do is get enough votes in the House and in the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill.

CURWOOD: The second thing?

HOLDREN: The second thing I would do is advise the President to sign it.

CURWOOD: And the third thing?

HOLDREN: The third thing I would do is work with industry, government, NGOs, universities and so on to generate the degree of innovation in energy technology that will enable us to meet those targets in the most cost effective possible way.

CURWOOD: As science advisor, what’s the one thing that you’d love to do that you just can’t do?

HOLDREN: Take vacations.

[LAUGHING]

CURWOOD: The climate’s not waiting is it?

HOLDREN: [laughing] The climate is not waiting.

CURWOOD: John Holdren is President Obama’s science advisor. Thank you so much.

HOLDREN: My pleasure. Glad to be with you.

YOUNG: Coming up: the few, the proud, the poisoned– Marine veterans still living with a legacy of contamination. Keep listening to Living on Earth.

Listen to LOE Interviews with Holdren: Here