DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[Stacyhs]

But that is the issue. There is a lot of confusion over these terms and you're not helping since you aren't providing any evidence.

When that person says "without authorization" do they mean "no passport or visa"? If so, that doesn't make the person illegal. That's exactly how a lot of asylum seekers would show up and there are provisions for that.

So can you provide some evidence that will clarify?

Oh, come on RY! If you enter without authorization, you enter illegally. Just admit they entered illegally but are now legal due to TPS. It's no big deal to admit you were mistaken.

 

[arayder]

I don't care.

OK, we know. So what?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Do you concede that unless they go through a designated immigration checkpoint, which the Yuma Gap and Rio Grande are not, they do enter illegally but become legal when they apply for asylum?

No, not exactly.

What I believe and would like to have confirmed is that asylum seekers are not automatically illegal the minute they enter the US and that include those that do not have passports of visas. That's a perfectly expected situation for asylum seeks since their home country may be making getting those documents difficult. I would expect our laws and procedures anticipate that. And, in particular for this thread, I don't see anything that appears trustworthy about how these particular Martha's Vineyard people entered the country.

Rio Grande sector definitely has two checkpoints in it. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that swimming or boating across the Rio Grande makes you illegal, there seem to be accommodations for that. Some people take odd paths in to the US to avoid Mexican criminals, not to avoid USBP. This detail also doesn't seem particularly relevant.

And I don't know whether the crossing point I described as ad-hoc counts as official or not. But it certainly illustrates those people have every intention of announcing their entry to the US at the earliest opportunity.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Oh, come on RY! If you enter without authorization, you enter illegally. Just admit they entered illegally but are now legal due to TPS. It's no big deal to admit you were mistaken.

Sigh. I don't know that I'm mistaken. Sheez. I am trying to find out if I'm mistaken. But that is difficult because I know a lot of other use the wrong language in these situations. And I don't know if that author knows all the details either.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

They entered illegally. That is all that is important. If you feel there is some important distinction to be made, I don't care. There isn't.

It's all that is important but you don't care about the distinction between illegal and legal.

OK. I still have no idea if any, some, or all of these people entered the country illegally. And it appears to be not likely to ever figure this out from this thread.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think RY is right. Someone who believes they are legally entitled to be granted asylum in the United States is to go to a border checkpoint and request asylum. That is a legal process protected by both US and international law. Legally they have not entered the United States until they are accepted as asylum seekers by the people at the border.

Below is a quote from the Rescue dot org website.

Is seeking asylum legal?

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. “You just have to show up." Link to Rescue dot org

On a legal basis, my understanding is entry into the United States for purposes of seeking asylum is a protected right. This is a legal definition. None of us are lawyers -- right? -- but I think an immigration attorney would say: "People entering the United States for purposes of applying for asylum are entering on legal grounds."

 

[Warp12]

SMFH.

This is literally the dumbest argument of this thread. Because not a single liberal cares one way or other. It isn't like someone is going to stand up and condemn the Venezuelans. It is also dumb because "crossed without authorization" is clearly implying they entered illegally. It didn't say, "stood in line seeking asylum".

Come on, people.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sigh. I don't know that I'm mistaken. Sheez. I am trying to find out if I'm mistaken. But that is difficult because I know a lot of other use the wrong language in these situations. And I don't know if that author knows all the details either.

This article is talking primarily about the immigrants flown to Martha's Vineyard:

ARE MIGRANTS LEGALLY IN THE UNITED STATES?

Yes, temporarily. 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.

I really don't know what is so difficult to understand that "without authorization" means "without official permission" which they did not have. It doesn't matter if they had a passport or visa; they did not present themselves at an immigration control checkpoint and therefore entered illegally.
This is just getting ridiculous.

 

[Norman Alexander]

SMFH.

This is literally the dumbest argument of this thread. Because not a single liberal cares one way or other. It isn't like someone is going to stand up and condemn the Venezuelans. It is also dumb because "crossed without authorization" is clearly implying they entered illegally. It didn't say, "stood in line seeking asylum".

Come on, people.

Nope. Does not imply that at all. You just wish it did. There are illegal means of entry, though, and as Stacy says, they are dealt with accordingly.

Again, the most common "illegal immigrants" in the USA by far are people who have passed through border controls with no problem because they have a US visa, then have overstayed that visa weeks later. But by then they have melted into the community, and are elusive and hard to locate. They were "legal" when they arrived, but "illegal" much later on. So much for "crossing without authorization".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I agree this is getting ridiculous but probably not for the same reasons you have.

This article is talking primarily about the immigrants flown to Martha's Vineyard:

Except you go on to quote a sentence that can't possibly be about the Martha's Vineyards case. Not to mention that it's just a sentence written by the author who may be just as confused as most people are on this issue.

I understand why it's important to Warp12 to make them illegal but why do you insist on accepting bad evidence for this?

We simply don't know whether these people were ever illegal. What we actually know is consistent with them having entered any way at all.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree this is getting ridiculous but probably not for the same reasons you have.



Except you go on to quote a sentence that can't possibly be about the Martha's Vineyards case. Not to mention that it's just a sentence written by the author who may be just as confused as most people are on this issue.

I understand why it's important to Warp12 to make them illegal but why do you insist on accepting bad evidence for this?

We simply don't know whether these people were ever illegal. What we actually know is consistent with them having entered any way at all.

Oh, good lord. What part of this are you not understanding?

Where were the migrants from? The 48 migrants who were taken from a shelter in San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard in mid-September are Venezuelans who had crossed the southwest border without authorization and had turned themselves in to border officials; many likely planned to claim asylum. After being taken into custody, they had been released to face future proceedings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/u...-vineyard.html

Without authorization=without official permission= illegal.

Legal entrants do not have to "turn themselves in to border officials" because they entered legally. Nor are legal entrants "taken into custody".

An individual who is eligible for TPS must register by submitting an application to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If a person demonstrates eligibility and USCIS grants TPS, that person receives a temporary stay of deportation and temporary authorization to work in the United States.

Why were they given a stay of deportation if they entered legally? People who enter legally don't have to get stay of deportation.

Yes, I understand thoroughly why Warp needs them to be 'illegals" but what I don't understand is your refusal to accept the facts that they entered illegally. Find me ONE citation that says they did. All you're going to find is that they are HERE NOW legally.



ETA:

"Except you go on to quote a sentence that can't possibly be about the Martha's Vineyards case.

Why not?

Not to mention that it's just a sentence written by the author who may be just as confused as most people are on this issue.

Spagat is the Associate Press US immigration team leader.

What next? Are you going to quibble what is meant by
US immigration team leader"?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Me not agreeing with you does not mean I don't understand. Not continuing this.

 

[Stacyhs]

Me not agreeing with you does not mean I don't understand. Not continuing this.

It's not me you are disagreeing with but the evidence supporting the fact that they entered illegally.

If you could present a single citation refuting what I've presented, you would. Instead, you're just resorting to the "not continuing this" tactic.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you could present a single citation refuting what I've presented, you would.

I know I can't do that. If could do that I wouldn't be saying I don't know the correct answer. I would be saying I know the answer and here is the evidence.

Your repeating the same source over and over doesn't make it any better. If it's really so important to you that I, some anonymous person on the internet, change my mind from "they might all be illegal" to "they are all illegal" then find an expert to confirm it.

For the record here, newyorkguy just presented a link to support "RY is right". I don't accept his source either. It's biased. I had already seen it and did not think that it settled the matter.

 

[phiwum]

"Turned themselves in"?




You think these Venezuelans are all "turning themselves in"? I mean, they should...since they are allowed to enter illegally. But apparently a hell of a lot of them are too stupid to even do that.

The rest of your post is too idiotic to consider.

The word "apprehension" may be used when someone voluntarily turns himself in, you know.

 

[bruto]

It sounds as if "ought to be illegal" is now the same as "illegal," and a "suckass law" is no law at all. I'm not convinced that this is a very good argument, even if it's true that they ought to be illegal, and even if it's true that the law is a mess.

 

[Norman Alexander]

It sounds as if "ought to be illegal" is now the same as "illegal," and a "suckass law" is no law at all. I'm not convinced that this is a very good argument, even if it's true that they ought to be illegal, and even if it's true that the law is a mess.

There are no problems, only opportunities.

Identify the problems, fix the immigration laws to do a better job, adjust the procedures, educate (or reassign) the border security people. And quickly.

 

[phiwum]

I know I can't do that. If could do that I wouldn't be saying I don't know the correct answer. I would be saying I know the answer and here is the evidence.

Your repeating the same source over and over doesn't make it any better. If it's really so important to you that I, some anonymous person on the internet, change my mind from "they might all be illegal" to "they are all illegal" then find an expert to confirm it.

For the record here, newyorkguy just presented a link to support "RY is right". I don't accept his source either. It's biased. I had already seen it and did not think that it settled the matter.

Recovering, are you sure that you're arguing with the right person? It sounds like you think you're arguing with Warp12, but you aren't.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Recovering, are you sure that you're arguing with the right person? It sounds like you think you're arguing with Warp12, but you aren't.

As far as I can tell Stacyhs and Warp12 agree on this point. They both are convinced that these people all entered the country illegally. They differ on whether they are illegal now. They differ on current legal status. Stacyhs thinks they are legal now. Warp12 says they are illegal now.

Can't you read back a few posts and see Stachyhs adamantly posting that they entered illegally and became legal after applying for asylum?

And to repeat my position: I don't know whether any of them entered the country legally or illegally. The word "illegal" gets used incorrectly on this subject quite a bit by people on both sides, both intentionally and unintentionally. I'm holding out for an expert opinion here.

 

[phiwum]

As far as I can tell Stacyhs and Warp12 agree on this point. They both are convinced that these people all entered the country illegally. They differ on whether they are illegal now. They differ on current legal status. Stacyhs thinks they are legal now. Warp12 says they are illegal now.

Can't you read back a few posts and see Stachyhs adamantly posting that they entered illegally and became legal after applying for asylum?

And to repeat my position: I don't know whether any of them entered the country legally or illegally. The word "illegal" gets used incorrectly on this subject quite a bit by people on both sides, both intentionally and unintentionally. I'm holding out for an expert opinion here.

My mistake. Carry on.