Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

[bruto]

As I understand it more or less the same criteria are used to determine refugee and asylum status, but a refugee is an immigrant who applies for refugee status, from outside the US, is tied to official US policy with regard to nations of concern, and is thus, one presumes, subject to immigration laws and quotas. Asylum differs in that, though the rationale for asylum or refugee status is the same, it can be applied for without regard to immigration status, and without regard for the country of origin, and can only be applied for by persons already in the US or at a port of entry.

Thus, a blanket denial of asylum to undocumented aliens is pretty literally a denial of asylum itself.

 

[acbytesla]

As I understand it more or less the same criteria are used to determine refugee and asylum status, but a refugee is an immigrant who applies for refugee status, from outside the US, and is thus, one presumes, subject to immigration laws and quotas. Asylum differs in that it can be applied for without regard to immigration status, and can only be applied for by person already in the US or at a port of entry.

You can be a refugee without fear of being mistreated or killed if you were returned home. An asylum-seeker has a legitimate reason to fear for his life if he is sent back.

 

[mumblethrax]

Nobody has the right to claim a bed in someone else's house, just because things are unpleasant at home.

Ok. But they do have a right to seek asylum, and countries are not houses anymore than they are churches, hospitals, or restaurants, so this analogy does not do any useful work.

I mean, you can be the “abandoning people to the wolves is fine, actually” guy if it makes you happy, but it has no bearing on anything.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Asylum seekers are a small number compared to refugees, who are a tiny number compared to how many people have been displaced internally within their countries.
The US is not put under any detectable strain investigating and accepting every legitimate asylum seeker.

A case could sometimes be made about refugees, given that the burden is very unevenly distributed and might affect some communities a lot more than others.

Pick your hill to die on - picking on asylum seekers just makes you a bad person.

 

[bruto]

You can be a refugee without fear of being mistreated or killed if you were returned home. An asylum-seeker has a legitimate reason to fear for his life if he is sent back.

This is assumed, I think, given that it's possible to obtain refugee status from home or some other place where one is not under immediate threat, but at least from the official definitions I read, the mortal fear that we presume motivates sanctuary seekers and requires them to flee without going through channels is not required, and so in some sense Hercules has half a point, though I suspect the reality differs from the official wording. There are two channels for becoming what the Immigration Service considers a refugee: applying as a refugee, or applying for asylum in order to become a refugee.

But the point remains that, aside from those pesky issues of what one might consider good, humane, moral or immoral, necessary or not, if you presume that illegal entry to the United States is a disqualification for asylum and subsequent refugee status you have effectively outlawed asylum by making its own definition the reason for refusing it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the US immigration system is set up to conflate Refugees and Asylum seekers to make it easy to reject the latter.
Until there is an effort made to make it easy for those protected under international law and/or US policy to enter legally there is no good argument to reject anyone.
Say what you want, and then make policies to make it happen. Don't leave everything in limbo and complain that every administration does what it wants.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, Biden restarted it after negotiations with Mexico to improve the program, and it lasted a few months and then shut down again. Trump wants to start it for a third time but that required more negotiations with Mexico.

Why would Trump want to restart something that you claim is already in place?

 

[Mojo]

And fundamental human rights are an open and contentious question. You can't just assert an answer out of rhetorical expediance.

Only because the sort of people who want to be allowed to imprison or deport people without due process find them inconvenient.

 

[Darat]

Asylum seekers are a small number compared to refugees, who are a tiny number compared to how many people have been displaced internally within their countries.
The US is not put under any detectable strain investigating and accepting every legitimate asylum seeker.

A case could sometimes be made about refugees, given that the burden is very unevenly distributed and might affect some communities a lot more than others.

Pick your hill to die on - picking on asylum seekers just makes you a bad person.

But that's only because you and others can discern a difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, sadly in countries such as the UK and USA the right have managed to - in many people's minds - conflate illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. And create the opinion that asylum seekers are frauds who get everything given to them that "our" people can't get.

 

[sinnikal]

Oh dear. It seems that Herc stumbled on the (mostly right-wing) fallacy that asylum seekers must seek asylum in the first "safe" country and bought himself a whole heap of schooling.
Seems to be a pattern of his way of thinking, considering it happens so often.

 

[The Don]

Oh dear. It seems that Herc stumbled on the (mostly right-wing) fallacy that asylum seekers must seek asylum in the first "safe" country and bought himself a whole heap of schooling.
Seems to be a pattern of his way of thinking, considering it happens so often.

It's almost as if, despite not accessing right wing media outlets, he is somehow channeling right wing talking points without scrutinising them......

 

[Hercules56]

Not true.

According to international law, its very true.

 

[Hercules56]

Why would Trump want to restart something that you claim is already in place?

Because i made an error and learned it was restarted under Biden but ultimately shut down in Oct 2022.

 

[bruto]

According to international law, its very true.

But according to US law there is an important difference, and that difference involves the mechanism by which that refugee status is applied for and granted. It explicitly bypasses the quotas and barriers to legal entry and the differences immigration law might recognize between nations which might influence the readiness to accept refugees. A person applying for refugee status in the normal process of immigration cannot, by definition, be an asylum seeker.

 

[acbytesla]

According to international law, its very true.

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Hercules56]

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You're projecting.

"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee their home due to a well-founded fear of persecution, conflict, or violence, and is recognized as such by a country or the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). An asylum seeker is someone who has left their country and is seeking international protection as a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been evaluated"


https://www.rescue.org/article/migrants-asylum-seekers-refugees-and-immigrants-whats-difference


Definition: Refugees are people fleeing armed conflicts or persecution. There were 19,5 million of them worldwide at the end of 2014 according to UNHCR. Their situation is so perilous that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries and become recognised as refugees with access to assistance from states and aid organisations.

An important piece of this is that refugees are protected by international law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention. But even the terms refugee and asylum seeker are often confused.

What is an asylum seeker​

Definition: An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim hasn’t been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs.

Someone is an asylum seeker for so long as their application is pending. So not every asylum seeker will be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.

Who is a refugee, a migrant or an asylum seeker?

Hint: they are all people on the move, and more than just a label.

www.amnesty.org

 

[bruto]

sorry, double post....

 

[bruto]

You're projecting.

"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee their home due to a well-founded fear of persecution, conflict, or violence, and is recognized as such by a country or the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). An asylum seeker is someone who has left their country and is seeking international protection as a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been evaluated"


https://www.rescue.org/article/migrants-asylum-seekers-refugees-and-immigrants-whats-difference


Definition: Refugees are people fleeing armed conflicts or persecution. There were 19,5 million of them worldwide at the end of 2014 according to UNHCR. Their situation is so perilous that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries and become recognised as refugees with access to assistance from states and aid organisations.

An important piece of this is that refugees are protected by international law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention. But even the terms refugee and asylum seeker are often confused.

What is an asylum seeker​

Definition: An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim hasn’t been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs.

Someone is an asylum seeker for so long as their application is pending. So not every asylum seeker will be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.

Who is a refugee, a migrant or an asylum seeker?

Hint: they are all people on the move, and more than just a label.

www.amnesty.org

From a certain point of view, of course, the two are essentially synonymous. The two words convey the same sense of what is desired or required. But from the legal standpoint, as made explicit in United States immigration law, the two are not synonymous. If a person is qualified before entry into the US as a refugee, that person cannot be an asylum seeker in the legal sense even if the words are presumed to mean the same thing. An asylum seeker is, by definition, a person who has not qualified for admission to the US through its regular immigration channels. Refugee status is based, in part, on membership in some pre-defined class. Asylum is individual from the start. If, for example, the government decrees that nobody from Country X may be admitted to the US, then no refugee can be admitted to the US. But asylum seekers, if they make the journey, can and must be given consideration as potential refugees, no matter where they come from.

Language aside, according to US immigration law, it is legally not possible for a person called a "refugee" to be the same as a person called an "asylum seeker." And an "asylum seeker" is not a refugee unless due process occurs and refugee status is granted. This distinction is important because it gives (or should give, in theory) a special status to asylum seekers, in that their urgent need for safety trumps the process of immigration law, diplomacy, and other factors that are weighed in the decision to grant refugee status, including the very possibility of documented admission.

You seem at times to be adamant in stating that US policy trumps international principles and declarations. So it seems a bit odd that suddenly the reverse should be true. You can look up the US immigration policy.

 

[Hercules56]

From a certain point of view, of course, the two are essentially synonymous. The two words convey the same sense of what is desired or required. But from the legal standpoint, as made explicit in United States immigration law, the two are not synonymous. If a person is qualified before entry into the US as a refugee, that person cannot be an asylum seeker in the legal sense even if the words are presumed to mean the same thing. An asylum seeker is, by definition, a person who has not qualified for admission to the US through its regular immigration channels. Refugee status is based, in part, on membership in some pre-defined class. Asylum is individual from the start. If, for example, the government decrees that nobody from Country X may be admitted to the US, then no refugee can be admitted to the US. But asylum seekers, if they make the journey, can and must be given consideration as potential refugees, no matter where they come from.

Language aside, according to US immigration law, it is legally not possible for a person called a "refugee" to be the same as a person called an "asylum seeker." And an "asylum seeker" is not a refugee unless due process occurs and refugee status is granted. This distinction is important because it gives (or should give, in theory) a special status to asylum seekers, in that their urgent need for safety trumps the process of immigration law, diplomacy, and other factors that are weighed in the decision to grant refugee status, including the very possibility of documented admission.

You seem at times to be adamant in stating that US policy trumps international principles and declarations. So it seems a bit odd that suddenly the reverse should be true. You can look up the US immigration policy.

According to international law, one is an asylum seeker until they are granted refugee status by a country or the UN.

 

[bruto]

According to international law, one is an asylum seeker until they are granted refugee status by a country or the UN.

Yes, once granted refugee status an asylum seeker becomes officially a refugee. But in US immigration law, the reverse is not the case. A person seeking refugee status initially through the mechanism of immigration, which is how the classification "refugee" is defined, CANNOT by definition be an asylum seeker in the way such a status is defined legally. And that is true even if international standards recognize that the thing a refugee seeks is asylum, and even if the ultimate goal of asylum seeking is to be classified as a refugee.

The process of becoming an official refugee is bound by rules and regulations. To be classified a refugee one must have passed through that process. The designation of "asylum seeker" is a process by which one can obtain the benefits of a refugee before having met the legal requirements, and at least in theory without having to meet all the specific requirements (which is why the law is specific that asylum is not dependent on the country of origin or the expressed policy of the United States).

Of course the two things are nearly equivalent, and the desired result is the same, but there is an important and fundamental legal distinction here, which seems to elude you. Throughout this thread you have made the point that the law, opinion and moral stance of the international community is trumped by the laws and policies of the United States. Here we are with a case in which the law of the United States is clear as to the difference, but you seem ready to deny it because of what Amnesty International says.