Expulsion vs. Proceedings

In light of recent events, I should rethink my criticism of the Moroccan government.

Two months ago, I wrote about the expulsion of Christian orphanage families:

It is becoming clearer and clearer that the serious issue in this case is due process of law. The laws were not consistently applied, and excessively severe measures were taken. If there had been consistent standards throughout the process, either The Village of Hope would not have been allowed to be established in the first place or certain activities would have been curtailed since the refounding of the orphanage over 10 years ago. Furthermore, if there had been due process of law, the families would have been allowed a hearing in a court of law or in a real public forum before their deportation.

Well, as it turns out, Morocco is not the only country that expels non-citizens rather than giving them a hearing in court. Other countries curtail the right of non-citizens to defend themselves and deprive them of a fear hearing on what they have done. Italy recently expelled two Moroccans under those same circumstances.

Both stories have received little news coverage. Morocco's first major expulsions of foreigners in March raised some media awareness, but quickly died down. But the government has learned its lesson and has continued the expulsions more discretely. The case of the Italian expulsions of Moroccans has also received little media exposure as GetReligion points out.

The one major difference between the two sets of expulsions: the expelled Moroccans were attempting to obtain explosives to blow up the pope, the expelled foreigners from Morocco were Christians trying to take care of orphans.