DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[RolandRat]

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.


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?

Your quote states to avoid prosecution for illegal entry not that the entry is actually legal.

edit - apologies you actually referenced port of entry. Yes, that is correct. If you approach a designated port of entry and hand yourself in, that is not illegal entry.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

That is incorrect. US Embassies are not considered US Territory or 'soil' and therefore cannot accept applications for asylum. They can accept and process 'follow-to-join' applications but those only apply to family members who want to join someone already granted asylum.

The I-730 is a refugee/asylee relative petition in what is often called a “follow-to-join” process. If you have been admitted to the U.S. as a refugee or if you were granted status in the U.S. as an asylee, you may be eligible to petition for your spouse and/or unmarried children under the age of 21.

https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/us-family-reunification.html

 

[Stacyhs]

Your quote states to avoid prosecution for illegal entry not that the entry is actually legal.

edit - apologies you actually referenced port of entry. Yes, that is correct. If you approach a designated port of entry and hand yourself in, that is not illegal entry.

Which is what I've been saying this whole discussion.

But if you enter without going through a designated port of entry, that is illegal. I really don't know why some people on here are having problems understanding this very simple fact.

 

[Stacyhs]

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!

You don't need a visa or any other documentation that would grant you access to US territory because a US embassy or consulate are not US Territory.

 

[RolandRat]

Also, it appears a judge isn't need to make the decision on whether a person is an illegal entrant, the border staff make that decision:

If you are within 100 miles of the U.S. border; sometimes called the "Border Zone," be aware that officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") are out looking for undocumented immigrants as well. They can subject you to a warrantless search or investigatory detention, and place you in expedited removal proceedings, which are fast tracks to deportation without a hearing. This article does not focus on expedited removal procedures, which follow a different and much shorter timeline.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-happens-when-undocumented-immigrant-is-caught.html

 

[RolandRat]

Which is what I've been saying this whole discussion.

But if you enter without going through a designated port of entry, that is illegal. I really don't know why some people on here are having problems understanding this very simple fact.

Absolutely, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. UK border staff operate the same way. Your reasons for crossing are not relevant as to determining if you are illegal or not. The simple act of crossing at a non designated point means you are automatically entering illegally.

 

[smartcooky]

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

Wrong


https://www.diffen.com/difference/Consulate_vs_Embassy

Jurisdiction: Even though embassies and consulates are located in another country, they are legally considered territory of the country they represent.​

But I wasn't there to seek asylum anyway, so you point and link quotes are moot

 

[Norman Alexander]

That is incorrect. US Embassies are not considered US Territory or 'soil' and therefore cannot accept applications for asylum. They can accept and process 'follow-to-join' applications but those only apply to family members who want to join someone already granted asylum.


https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/us-family-reunification.html

They can accept asylum applicants. I give you Julian Assange and the Ecuadorian embassy.

The USA wants to have their cake and eat it too by claiming US embassies are not " US territory" when it is convenient to them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

Does this really make sense to you? Your passport could be fake. Are you legal up until the point the guard at the checkpoint establishes it's not?

This makes no sense. You're following the established procedure. Why would the established procedure include a step that you must carry out illegally?

 

[Hellbound]

I think I have to agree with RY here. I see it more like self-defense being an excuse for shooting someone, as an example. Yes, murder is a crime, but if you shot someone who was trying to stab you, it's considered justified (not a crime).

I'd view "illegally" crossing the border to request asylum as similarly justified in the law.

But IANAL, etc, etc. Just tossing in a couple cents.

 

[Random]

Does this really make sense to you? Your passport could be fake. Are you legal up until the point the guard at the checkpoint establishes it's not?

This makes no sense. You're following the established procedure. Why would the established procedure include a step that you must carry out illegally?

US immigration policy is like inviting a homeless person over for Thanksgiving, setting out a place for them at the table, and filling the front yard with barbed wire and attack dogs. The place has been set, and if they get through the front yard they can enjoy the meal.

This makes a certain kind of sense for the family, as they can enjoy the warm, fuzzy feeling of being open-minded and generous, while still not having to actually deal with undesirables. As long as they don’t look out the window and ignore the barking, they get the best of both worlds.

 

[Warp12]

I think I have to agree with RY here. I see it more like self-defense being an excuse for shooting someone, as an example. Yes, murder is a crime, but if you shot someone who was trying to stab you, it's considered justified (not a crime).

I'd view "illegally" crossing the border to request asylum as similarly justified in the law.

But IANAL, etc, etc. Just tossing in a couple cents.

Well it should be simple to look up the pertinent exception to law, then. The one that clarifies when crossing the border illegally is legal. Just like self-defense laws detail exceptions for shooting people.

So far all of the law just clearly spells out why these crossings ARE illegal.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I think I have to agree with RY here. I see it more like self-defense being an excuse for shooting someone, as an example. Yes, murder is a crime, but if you shot someone who was trying to stab you, it's considered justified (not a crime).

I'd view "illegally" crossing the border to request asylum as similarly justified in the law.

But IANAL, etc, etc. Just tossing in a couple cents.

It's just occurred to me I can ask some experts. I live in the southern border zone and occasionally run in to lawyers who work cases like this. I'll just wait for that if I still care.

I think your murder analogy is good but I think the analogy someone else offered earlier may also apply: speeding your wife to the hospital. I think this is probably at that level (and that is assuming the asylum laws don't trump the immigration checkpoint law).

Basically I suspect two possibilities here: One it's justified in law to use your wording and therefore not even illegal in these cases, or so minor a technicality in some cases that it would be perverse to charge someone. I mean let's recall that we aren't talking about people who get fast tracked out, we are talking about the case of people who really turn out to be legitimate and cooperated every step of the way, and on top that the only step that's even questionable is, in many cases, driven by trying to avoid criminal gangs on the Mexican side of the border not by trying to avoid a checkpoint.

So I'm not granting DeSantis or Warp12 even this. It's not warranted yet.

 

[Warp12]

So I'm not granting DeSantis or Warp12 even this. It's not warranted yet.

I can promise you that DeSantis and Warp12 are not very concerned. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one disputing the law as it is written. So far, after pages of this, nobody has offered up any evidence of law that illegal crossings are legal for asylum seekers.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I can promise you that DeSantis and Warp12 are not very concerned. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one disputing the law as it is written. So far, after pages of this, nobody has offered up any evidence of law that illegal crossings are legal for asylum seekers.

OK. Then explain how DeSantis isn't then complicit in removing these people from the jurisdiction they should be facing charges in.

 

[Warp12]

OK. Then explain how DeSantis isn't then complicit in removing these people from the jurisdiction they should be facing charges in.

What does this have to do with your theory that the way they entered the country is not illegal? Nothing, that's what. I don't care if he is complicit or not; it has nothing to do with your claims.

Furthermore, even if it were determined that the crime is rarely prosecuted in these cases, that does not make their method of entry legal.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What does this have to do with your theory that the way they entered the country is not illegal? Nothing, that's what.

It has nothing to do with that. It doesn't have to. It's another topic relevant to the one we are talking about. If you're correct you now have to explain how DeSantis isn't complicit in them evading the law (or don't explain it if you like).

 

[wareyin]

What does this have to do with your theory that the way they entered the country is not illegal? Nothing, that's what. I don't care if he is complicit or not; it has nothing to do with your claims.

Furthermore, even if it were determined that the crime is rarely prosecuted in these cases, that does not make their method of entry legal.

Wait, I thought you believed that if it isn't prosecuted then it's ok? Or does that only apply to your guys and not the brown people?

 

[Warp12]

It has nothing to do with that. It doesn't have to. It's another topic relevant to the one we are talking about. If you're correct you now have to explain how DeSantis isn't complicit in them evading the law (or don't explain it if you like).

No, I don't have to explain that. It is not a debate that I have championed.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, I don't have to explain that. It is not a debate that I have championed.

OK. So we are leaving that idea that your claim that these migrants are illegals makes DeSantis complicit in further crimes unchallenged. Got it.