It looks like a saving face issue to me.

After all, how much of a monstrous jackass would he look like if he deported a female genital mutilation victim?

That aside, Mukasey is incompetent, so this kind of stupid (the kind that will define his public record) is pretty much a pattern.

Nice to see it broken a little.

Because waterboarding accomplishes something, but kicking out women who've been victims of FGM accomplishes nothing? C'mon, I'm not in favor of waterboarding, but the difference here is clear, and we should be celebrating Mukasey, who's a *pretty smart guy*, for doing the right thing.

Sorry, I don't understand how one can say they are "not in favor of waterboarding" and yet claim "it accomplishes something," unless the accomplishment one is referring to is torture. Then, I'd say deporting an FGM victim is akin to torture, just as is waterboarding. I think the comparison is pretty apt.
________________________________________________
I'm glad that FGM has gotten enough attention to even warrant this discussion, but I've witnessed women deported back to their home countries (and in most cases back to abusers), despite their fear for their lives. I've seen kids sent back to their abusive fathers in other countries because Mom's crime was fleeing to protect them. So the pessimist in me thinks that FGM is so "foreign," so "other" to Americans, that it's easier to see this as a blatant wrong and want to step in and help/protect.

Well even the article says that he stepped in after Congress members expressed anger over the situation, so it's possible he's just doing it to get the Congress members off his back.

Um....I'm not complaining. While this decision may be an aberration, at least it's an aberration in the right direction. It's certainly not enough, but focusing on he negatives isn't going to help us convince Mukasey that he should continue supporting human rights. I know it sounds cliche and out of place, but "positive reinforcement" usually helps more than negative. I think we should thank Mukasey for stepping in, and encourage him to rethink his views on other issues as well.

Ladies, this man is starting to help are cause. Lets not bite a hand that might feed us. Lets quite being pessimistic and negative and look to what good might come from this.

Too much negativity and bitterness on this site.

Protecting the womenfolk from the barbaric, uncivilized other has often been a rationale for imperialism. Thus, this decision fits neatly into our paternalistic notion that Muslims need us to fix their cultures.

On another note, we need to not be blind to the FGM that goes on right here in the US of A, and often for the same reasons: beauty, hygiene, marriagability. I'm thinking of boob jobs, labiaplasty, and unnecessary c-sections and episiotomies. When a culture routinely cuts women's genitals (for our own good, of course!) it is a form of structural violence that needs to be addressed.

Nimue, I think you're being a little extreme. A female child or woman being held down and having her clitoris excised isn't really comparable to a doctor urging a woman in labor to have a C-section (even when she specifically intended to have a vaginal birth). Nor is a woman having a boob job, even when she does it because her culture makes her feel unattractive.

I'm no fan of American infant genital cutting in the form of male circumcision, but even if you feel the decision is hypocritical, this woman actively pleaded to be protected. I'm glad she will be!

I think Mukasey did it for the positive press, but let's all send him an approving message regardless.

Quite simply because of the great women's domestic violence and feminist organizations that early on supported immigrant women.

I've worked in a few different capacities in immigration law. The ONLY good development in recent years (since 1990) in immigration law has been a few laws that have helped women who have been subject to gender-based violence.

Mukasey may not care at all about human rights. However, there is some strength to the women's immigrant coalition.

It still sucks though. A few years ago, I worked with a lot of Central American torture and massacre survivors (courtesy of our government's support for their governments' war on their own people) who were still seeking permanent legal status after coming here as refugees in the 80s. The men got sent back to their countries without any real opportunity to explain their asylum claims. If the women were "lucky" enough to be able to demonstrate that they had been victims of domestic violence here in the US, they had a good chance of avoiding deportation--that is, the horrific suffering they experienced here enabled them to avoid being exiled to a land where their lives would almost certainly be in danger.

On the one hand, I'm happy for this FGM decision and for some of the good things that have happened with women's access to the asylum process. On the other hand, I don't like it that our government can torture men with impunity and start wars that kill hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children with no consequences.