DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[Stacyhs]

Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate and stupid. It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum. You've demonstrated an absurd reading of that sentence.

Jesus H. Christ. I've seen some spinning here in my time, but this takes the prize. You have not presented a single piece of evidence that states "It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum." It doesn't become a fact by you just saying so...or thinking it. A person MUST be inspected and admitted at a port of entry to enter legally. If a person has a passport/visa, they don't need to wade across the damn Rio Grande or slip in at the Yuma Gap.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Inspection is the formal process of determining whether a noncitizen may lawfully enter the United States.

To lawfully enter the United States, a noncitizen must apply and present himself or herself in person to an immigration officer at a U.S. port of entry when the port is open for inspection.

There is NO exemption stated that an asylum seeker can enter LEGALLY without presenting himself for inspection at a port of entry.

You're not even attaching that to the requirement that they enter outside of a checkpoint. Isn't it obvious that you are reading that sentence incorrectly? Your interpretation would make it impossible to request asylum anywhere except an embassy.

Rolling my eyes at such an absurd claim.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"Under Title 8, those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and who are unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States (such as a valid asylum claim), will be quickly removed."

IOW: they entered illegally but can remain legally if they have a valid asylum claim. Nowhere does it mention exceptions for TPS countries like Venezuela.

What the hell does that post above have to do with checkpoints or embassies?
A 'legal basis to remain' includes a "valid asylum claim" as in, oh, I dunno....like being from a country that has TPS status. But they have to apply for asylum while on US soil...which is why they cross illegally in the first place. It's not just granted by thinking about it.

I'm not the one who is reading the sentence incorrectly.

At this point it's not even clear that the requirement to enter at a checkpoint isn't trumped by the asylum laws.

It's very clear to those who bother to read the evidence provided by not only me, but by Roland Rat. I also had the same info from NOLO but he beat me to it.

If this is such a slam dunk then find a good argument.

The irony of that coming from someone who has failed to present any evidence that asylum seekers entering the US by means other than presenting themselves at a port of entry is legal.

It's like trying to argue that the election wasn't stolen with election deniers. Facts don't matter.

 

[Stacyhs]

Whatever. A number of countries do have a special exception right now, which is why those migrants are avoiding being deported even upon illegal entry. Whereas others are deported. This has been discussed for pages and pages.
The debate now is about whether entering illegally is...illegal. If you can believe that. Yes, that is what a certain "think tank" of skeptics has put forth. It is brilliant, to say the least.

Dammit, I hate to agree with Warp on anything, but when he's right...however rare that may be...he's still right. Like the saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't be arsed to start going through USA case law anymore just to convince someone who is niggling about a point that really doesn't even matter. I have shown you the actual law about how illegal entry is defined. Are you trying to say the immigrants that this thread is about entered legally?

edit - I would guess that as these guys walked up to the border patrol and handed themselves in, they would have probably said they entered illegally.



https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states

Looks to me like they catch you near the border, you have no papers or can provide no proof you are in the country legally, they assume you are illegal and /yeet. Unless you claim asylum.

edit 2 -

Found this:



https://immigrationforum.org/articl...ure,have committed misrepresentation or fraud.

Thanks for being a voice of reason and sanity here. I was getting close to the 'pulling my hair out' in frustration stage.

 

[arayder]

If you understood due process of law you'd know the answer to that question.

. . .crickets. . .

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Jesus H. Christ. I've seen some spinning here in my time, but this takes the prize. You have not presented a single piece of evidence that states "It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum." It doesn't become a fact by you just saying so...or thinking it.

Hold on for a second please. I don't know why you need evidence for a point we apparently agree on. See next quote.

A person MUST be inspected and admitted at a port of entry to enter legally.

OK. If you'll go back to where you got the quote from me that I highlighted in yellow above you'll see that I didn't think you were including this condition.

So I think we agree here? A person who shows up unauthorized, without passport or visa, at a checkpoint can apply for asylum and not be an illegal, correct?

If a person has a passport/visa, they don't need to wade across the damn Rio Grande...

Yes, some do. This has been pointed out before. Also RolandRat's citations which you appear to like and which I haven't finished reading support the claim that some people swim across the Rio to avoid criminals on the Mexican side, not immigration on the US side.

... or slip in at the Yuma Gap. [/B]

Are you referring to the video I posted? That wasn't people "slipping in". It was people obviously with full intentions to park themselves right where USBP would find them. It has since occurred to me that the one's shown were actually on the correct side of the border.

There is NO exemption stated that an asylum seeker can enter LEGALLY without presenting himself for inspection at a port of entry.

That's your interpretation and I'm not accepting it because I don't you have the skill (I don't either) and I don't see judges acting on your interpretation. There are other laws, protocols, and treaties impacting this. There is no guarantee that taking one law out of context will lead to a correct understanding.

 

[newyorkguy]

It seems fairly clear to me that if someone goes to a designated US port of entry and requests admission for purposes of gaining asylum they are NOT attempting to enter the United States illegally. Below is a quote from an Arizona law firm that specializes on immigration law.

Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, it is a crime for any noncitizen to enter (or even to "attempt" to enter) the United States anywhere other than a designated entry point, or "port of entry" or "POE." Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to the United States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border. Green Evans Schroeder Immigration Legal Defense

My understanding is, if an asylum seeker goes to a port of entry and requests admission in order to request asylum they are not attempting to enter illegally. How could they be when they have the right under international and US law to seek asylum?

Yes, seeking asylum is legal—even during a pandemic. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to request the opportunity to apply for asylum. "There’s no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance for the purpose of seeking asylum,” says IRC director of asylum and immigration legal services Olga Byrne [director, International Rescue Committee]. “You just have to show up." IRC link

 

[Norman Alexander]

Think back to the bad old days of US embassies (i.e. US territory) in "bad" countries, e.g. Communist Bloc. People seeking asylum in the USA would sneak in the gate, climb over walls, all sort of ways, just to get into the embassy. Technically, they were "breaching the border, thus entering the USA via an illegal means". Once inside, and only once inside, they would try to claim asylum. This is exactly the same situation for many refugees on the southern border today.

In the past, the USA usually viewed such claims favourably, even covertly assisting in some cases. But then again, most of the asylum-seekers were white Caucasians...

 

[newyorkguy]

Asylum seekers who come across the border on their own, enter the United States at a clandestine spot and THEN at some point request asylum, I can agree that they did enter the US illegally. The Arizona law firm makes that clear.

By the way, I'm not tearing my hair out over this discussion. I have too little to spare!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I can't be arsed to start going through USA case law anymore just to convince someone who is niggling about a point that really doesn't even matter. I have shown you the actual law about how illegal entry is defined.

Yes, but as has been explained multiple times now, there also other laws. You can't just pull law one out of the code and think you have the full picture.

And no one is forcing you to participate.

Are you trying to say the immigrants that this thread is about entered legally?

No, there is not enough information to make that statement yet. The best information I recall in support of "illegal entry" is a few news reports saying some of them entered illegally but people get that wrong all the time. Even the well meaning people get that wrong at times.

They seem to be free and not restricted as if they have to face a trial for their illegal entry. I don't see that granting them asylum allows them to get off scot free from a crime so they could still be charged with that and have it on their record. Even though they can't be deported, they would still have that on their record and that could make difference to them down line.

What do you think the best info is that all, or even some, of these people entered illegally? You don't have to research it or provide a link, just tell me what you recall the best evidence is for that and I'll track it down.

Thanks for your earlier link. I'm still reading it.

On the other hand, I don't know you want me to get out of the links below. They are good references on the asylum process, but they don't seem to be addressing anything at issue in this thread.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states
https://immigrationforum.org/articl...ure,have committed misrepresentation or fraud.

Looks to me like they catch you near the border, you have no papers or can provide no proof you are in the country legally, they assume you are illegal and /yeet. Unless you claim asylum.

Right, if you have no valid reason to be in the country you get kicked out, quickly. There is no dispute about that.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Asylum seekers who come across the border on their own, enter the United States at a clandestine spot and THEN at some point request asylum, I can agree that they did enter the US illegally. The Arizona law firm makes that clear.

Yeah, I agree with that too. And I'll add especially so if it only comes up when they have been caught.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Jesus H. Christ. I've seen some spinning here in my time, but this takes the prize. You have not presented a single piece of evidence that states "It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum." It doesn't become a fact by you just saying so...or thinking it.

Hold on for a second please. I don't know why you need evidence for a point we apparently agree on. See next quote.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
A person MUST be inspected and admitted at a port of entry to enter legally.

Oh, good god. ENTERING the US without being inspected at a port of entry is ILLEGAL. APPLYING FOR ASYLUM ONCE THEY HAVE ENTERED IS LEGAL. Do you not understand the difference between "ENTER" and "APPLYING"? Two distinct acts, one illegal, the other not.

OK. If you'll go back to where you got the quote from me that I highlighted in yellow above you'll see that I didn't think you were including this condition.

The quote clearly says "without authorization" which mean illegally. If you come through a checkpoint (port of entry) then you were authorized to do so. I really didn't think that had to be explained.

OK. So I think we agree here? A person who shows up unauthorized, without passport or visa, at a checkpoint can apply for asylum and not be an illegal, correct?

If they present themselves at a checkpoint (port of entry) and request asylum, they are then allowed to ENTER legally. The question you have always asked is if entering elsewhere (crossing the Rio or Yuma Gap) means they entered illegally. The answer has always been YES.

Once they are here illegally and then APPLY for asylum, THEN they are not here illegally from that point. That has never been in question. It was the fact that APPLYING does not mean they still didn't ENTER illegally. It's really not that hard. I don't know why you have had such difficulty in understanding that.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If a person has a passport/visa, they don't need to wade across the damn Rio Grande...

Yes, some do. This has been pointed out before.

Where?

Also RolandRat's citations which you appear to like and which I haven't finished reading support the claim that some people swim across the Rio to avoid criminals on the Mexican side", not immigration on the US side.

Nothing RRat posted in any way suggests that people with Passports/Visas "swim across the Rio to avoid criminals on the Mexican side. An asylum seeker doesn't avoid immigration on the US side; he seeks them out to apply for asylum.

Are you referring to the video I posted? That wasn't people "slipping in". It was people obviously with full intentions to park themselves right where USBP would find them. It has since occurred to me that the one's shown were actually on the correct side of the border.

No, I'm not referring to that but to what I said: "If a person has a passport/visa, they don't need to wade across the damn Rio Grande or slip in at the Yuma Gap.

There is NO exemption stated that an asylum seeker can enter LEGALLY without presenting himself for inspection at a port of entry.

That's your interpretation

No, it's not my damn interpretation! If you bothered to actually read the link there is NO exemption stated that an asylum seeker can enter LEGALLY without presenting himself for inspection at a port of entry.

and I'm not accepting it because I don't you have the skill (I don't either) and I don't see judges acting on your interpretation. .

Since it wasn't my "interpretation" that the website I linked to did NOT state an exception for asylum seekers, it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not. The only SKILL you need is to be able to comprehend what is and isn't stated in the link.

There are other laws, protocols, and treaties impacting this. There is no guarantee that taking one law out of context will lead to a correct understanding

Yes....which I have been taken into consideration by looking at the dates of the documents to assure they are current. No law was taken out of context.

Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate and stupid.

The irony...it burns!

 

[smartcooky]

So, can I just ask this question?

If I walk into the United States Embassy (which is United States territory) in order to apply for a US-NIV, have I illegally entered US territory because I did not have prior permission to do so?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Do you not understand the difference between "ENTER" and "APPLYING"? Two distinct acts, one illegal, the other not.
!

No I don't understand that difference. It's one of the differences I'm tryng to clear up.

You're kind of helping though. The situation is that I'm learning because of you but not from you. It would help if you could minimize the wall of text and just make your points succinctly.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So, can I just ask this question?

If I walk into the United States Embassy (which is United States territory) in order to apply for a US-NIV, have I illegally entered US territory because I did not have prior permission to do so?

Freaking amazing that question has to be asked, but it does have to be asked.

ETA: Don't think you meant that for me but the answer is "no".

 

[Norman Alexander]

So, can I just ask this question?

If I walk into the United States Embassy (which is United States territory) in order to apply for a US-NIV, have I illegally entered US territory because I did not have prior permission to do so?

Technically, and only technically, you have. So the answer is "yes".

The situation is the staff there do not have to accept your application for asylum. You could be adjudged to be a prankster or a local lunatic who managed to evade the machine-gun nests, etc. In which case you would be quietly but firmly escorted back out the gate and into the street...in the host country's territory. How sad.

Or you could be James Bond or Mission Impossible, i.e. white and Caucasian, and welcomed with open arms.

 

[gnome]

Yes, I can have it both ways. Because I am not saying that these Venezuelans do not fall under a special exception. I am not saying they are technically here illegally. It is my opinion that the law sucks. As I have already mentioned. In Warp12's view, they are still illegals...but that is just my feeling on the matter. I know the law does not agree.

Now, that is a lot different than saying, "the special exception doesn't exist or apply to them". It would be one thing to say, "it shouldn't be illegal for them to cross...illegally". It is another to claim that what they did is not against clearly written law.

So if the law is in their favor, the law sucks. If the law is against them, violating it makes them a criminal.

In other words your policy is "screw those guys, I don't like them".

 

[Stacyhs]

No I don't understand that difference. It's one of the differences I'm tryng to clear up.

Well, there's your problem then. If you don't understand the difference between entering a country and applying for something once you're in, then I can't help you. Maybe a dictionary can.

You're kind of helping though. The situation is that I'm learning because of you but not from you. It would help if you could minimize the wall of text and just make your points succinctly.

You mean "succinctly" like these?

They are entering illegally but they aren't here illegally once they turn themselves in and apply for asylum.

and

Who said they were "mostly professionals"? What Covid protocols are they not adhering to? Mask requirements that don't exist in Texas?

If corners are cut and errors made, then I suggest that is not the fault or responsibility of the Venezuelans.

Please stop referring to them as "illegals". Yes, you keep repeating that they entered illegally, but their status is legal once they apply for asylum. As much as you may not like it, it does not change that fact.

and

They are entering illegally when they cross the border without going through a border check point/immigration control. Crossing the Rio Grande or climbing over, going through or under the "wall" isn't in any way 'legal'. Hiring a coyote to smuggle them across the border wouldn't be necessary if they could enter legally. But once they turn themselves in to border patrol agents and apply for asylum, they are no longer here illegally.

Quote:
Tens of thousands of migrants who cross the border illegally from Mexico are released in the United States each month with notices to appear in immigration court to pursue asylum or on humanitarian parole with requirements to report regularly to immigration authorities. Migrants may seek asylum if they enter the country illegally under U.S. and international law, and U.S. authorities have broad authority to grant parole based on individual circumstances.

https://www.masslive.com/news/2022/...he-us-this-and-other-questions-explained.html

Putting it succinctly didn't seem to help so I quoted evidence. That didn't help you, either. Can't win either way according to you.

 

[smartcooky]

Technically, and only technically, you have. So the answer is "yes".

The situation is the staff there do not have to accept your application for asylum. You could be adjudged to be a prankster or a local lunatic who managed to evade the machine-gun nests, etc. In which case you would be quietly but firmly escorted back out the gate and into the street...in the host country's territory. How sad.

Or you could be James Bond or Mission Impossible, i.e. white and Caucasian, and welcomed with open arms.

The US Embassy and Consulate in Auckland allowed me to walk right through the front door. All I had to do is show my NZ driver's (but I had my NZ passport just in case). Of course, I had an appointment, but I did not have a visa or any other documentation that would grant me access to US territory.

NOTE: There were no armed guards, or machine gun nests - I like my Martini's stirred, with a lemon twist... and I wasn't carrying a NOC - I left that at home!

 

[Stacyhs]

So, can I just ask this question?

If I walk into the United States Embassy (which is United States territory) in order to apply for a US-NIV, have I illegally entered US territory because I did not have prior permission to do so?

Nope. Because an embassy is not "US territory":

Unfortunately, U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection. That's because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry).

There is a common misconception that U.S. embassies and consulates are basically the same as U.S. soil. It is true that international law protects national embassies and consulates from being destroyed, entered, or searched (without permission) by the government of the country where they are located (the host country).

However, this does not give those embassies or consulates the full status of being part of their home nation's territory. Therefore, U.S. law does not consider asylum seekers at U.S. embassies and consulates to be "physically present in the United States" (or at a U.S. border or point of entry).

 

[Norman Alexander]

The US Embassy and Consulate in Auckland allowed me to walk right through the front door. All I had to do is show my NZ driver's (but I had my NZ passport just in case). Of course, I had an appointment, but I did not have a visa or any other documentation that would grant me access to US territory.

NOTE: There were no armed guards, or machine gun nests - I like my Martini's stirred, with a lemon twist... and I wasn't carrying a NOC - I left that at home!

If you had no appointment, you would have met Tony and Luigi, the two professional piano-throwers in US Marines uniform, who would have ensured you would be back out on the street pronto and "having a nice day".