DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[Stacyhs]

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.

I've given several sources, not "the same source".

NYG's post:

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.

Yes, they have the right to request asylum. That is not in dispute. But notice the highlighted part: they did NOT go to a border checkpoint. I've said that repeatedly.

Requesting asylum is a right, but crossing at a point that is not an immigration checkpoint is not legal.

 

[newyorkguy]

Following the end of WWII many nations, including the United States, began to adopt policies to protect persons fleeing "well-founded fears of persecution." One of the factors driving this was the certain knowledge that many of those murdered in Nazi Germany might have survived if they had been able to flee, knowing other nations would accept them. Two landmarks.

• 1948 - U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”
• 1950 - For the first time, America adopted a legal provision to allow people at risk of persecution to remain in this country, the precursor of today’s asylum provision.

Well Founded Fear documentary website

None of this 'just happened.' The right to seek asylum is well-established both in U.S. and international law.

 

[Lurch]

To the froth-flecked anti-immigrant ragers, it would appear that a singular, brief moment of illegality in setting foot across the border is in no way ameliorated by immediately presenting to authorities in the legal act of claiming asylum. In their fevered minds the initial act is technically determinitave to the exclusion of all else.

Not that even the fully legal course adhered to by other 'undesirables' escapes their ire, but here there are no grounds to justifiably (in their view) vomit their venom in discriminating company.

 

[Stacyhs]

Following the end of WWII many nations, including the United States, began to adopt policies to protect persons fleeing "well-founded fears of persecution." One of the factors driving this was the certain knowledge that many of those murdered in Nazi Germany might have survived if they had been able to flee, knowing other nations would accept them. Two landmarks.


None of this 'just happened.' The right to seek asylum is well-established both in U.S. and international law.

I don't think anyone is denying that the right to seek asylum exists.

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe this will clear things up for some people:

Did the immigrants sent to Martha's Vineyard enter the U.S. illegally?

There is a political debate over whether people who cross the border to apply for asylum are entering the country illegally. DeSantis and others say that people who come in without any prior authorization are doing so illegally, even if they ultimately apply for asylum.
"America is apparently the only nation on earth where you can enter by violating our laws and then a week later sue the government whose laws you violated," Rubio said in a Sept. 21 Instagram post.

Immigrant rights advocates argue that because physical presence in the U.S. is a requirement to apply for asylum, their entry should not be considered illegal, even if they were apprehended by or turned themselves into Border Patrol agents.
Debate aside, immigration experts told PolitiFact that people have the legal right to seek asylum in the United States.

"While people who present themselves at the border to claim asylum may not have status at the time of their arrival at the border, they are exercising their right to request asylum," said Bush-Joseph, from the Migration Policy Institute.
One thing is clear: Once people have asylum applications in process, they are allowed to remain in the country as they await a resolution of their immigration case.

Notice that the immigrant rights advocates don't claim they did enter legally, only that they should not be considered illegal.

From the Washington Examiner:

This is the simple fact: It is illegal to enter the U.S. without authorization, as all the Venezuelans did when they waded across the Rio Grande into Texas. Again: It is not legal to do that — wading across the Rio Grande is not a legal way to enter the U.S.

"If you run across the border and you don't stop and talk to an official, that's called entering without inspection," said Joe Edlow, a former acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. "That is a federal offense, and you can be prosecuted for that. It is a criminal law, so your breaking that law has no bearing on your reason for entering the United States. There is no defense in that law as written that says, 'I was coming in to seek asylum.'"

"The Venezuelans (and other border-jumpers) are using an asylum claim as a defense against deportation," noted Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter immigration enforcement. "They can't even make the asylum claim until they're in removal proceedings for having entered illegally."

So the illegal border crossers are in removal proceedings. Why are they in removal proceedings? Because they entered the U.S. illegally.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's a pretty good quote. There are probably also people working at Burger King who could have been star running backs in the NFL, under different circumstances.

Who cares.

have you noticed that the same argument can be made about Abortion?

 

[smartcooky]

To the froth-flecked anti-immigrant ragers, it would appear that a singular, brief moment of illegality in setting foot across the border is in no way ameliorated by immediately presenting to authorities in the legal act of claiming asylum. In their fevered minds the initial act is technically determinitave to the exclusion of all else.

Not that even the fully legal course adhered to by other 'undesirables' escapes their ire, but here there are no grounds to justifiably (in their view) vomit their venom in discriminating company.

Racists and bigots almost always out themselves eventually. This is especially so when they are pressured into justifying the unjustifiable, excusing the inexcusable and defending the indefensible.

That is when the spittle-filled fury comes out; the morally repugnant attacks on "The Other"; labeling them as criminals and disease-ridden; implying they are subhuman and intellectually backwards; vilifying them for having the misfortune to be born in what the racists and bigots refer to as "****-hole countries"

That is when we find out who and what they really are... and that what we have suspected about them is in fact the truth. They tell is with their own words!!

 

[dudalb]

Looks as if Hurricane is going to hit Florida hard,but De Santis seems more interested in his stupid political stunts then in protecting thepeople of Florida.

 

[smartcooky]

Looks as if Hurricane is going to hit Florida hard,but De Santis seems more interested in his stupid political stunts then in protecting thepeople of Florida.

Off to Cancún in 3... 2... 1...

 

[catsmate]

Skipped learning anything about what happened before commenting, eh?

Are you surprised? Republicans find facts anathematic.

 

[catsmate]

Not very impressive. That cage photo is from 2014 during the Obama/Biden Admin. Chain link fence enclosures have been the norm for some time in detention facilities.

You're lying again.

 

[catsmate]

The largest group of illegal immigrants is caused by...overstaying a legally issued visa.

Ah, facts.

 

[newyorkguy]

...Notice that the immigrant rights advocates don't claim they did enter legally, only that they should not be considered illegal.

Below this statement are quotes from the Washington Examiner which is a right wing news outlet. The Examiner quotes the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. The Center for Immigration Studies is an anti-immigration think tank which the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a hate group. I don't find these to be "immigrant rights advocates."

 

[Darat]

Looks as if Hurricane is going to hit Florida hard,but De Santis seems more interested in his stupid political stunts then in protecting thepeople of Florida.

God's punishment for DeSantis's actions?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Maybe this will clear things up for some people:

The Washington Examiner??? The paper that spread the "prayer rugs found on my border ranch" story. Good gawd.

But thanks for confirming the issue I'm asking about is debatable and doesn't have a clear answer yet. If you can't drop this how about taking it to a new thread (not promising I'll join)?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Below this statement are quotes from the Washington Examiner which is a right wing news outlet. The Examiner quotes the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. The Center for Immigration Studies is an anti-immigration think tank which the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a hate group. I don't find these to be "immigrant rights advocates."

Stacyhs didn't adequately explain that or quote it clearly. The statement you quoted attributed to immigrant rights activists comes from the Austin American-Herald. It doesn't seem to identify those advocates. But note that is says they should not be considered illegals.

ETA: Here is an attributed quote from the conclusion of the Austin Ameican-Herald article.

One thing is clear: Once people have asylum applications in process, they are allowed to remain in the country as they await a resolution of their immigration case.

The same law that provides for the removal of people who are found to be inadmissible carves out an explicit exception for asylum seekers, Legomsky said. That law requires immigration officers to refer applicants for asylum interviews, not remove them.

Asylum seekers, he said, "have the unqualified right to remain in the United States unless and until their applications are denied."

Basically, the one trustworthy source she cited says the issue is debatable.

 

[shemp]

I still reckon it is just a continued attempt to bait posters here who won't drop the dead squirrel.

Exactly. EVERYBODY STOP PLAYING WITH THE DEAD SQUIRREL!!! This thread has become nothing but bickering with a dead squirrel who is making you look like fools! And he's right! You are fools!

 

[shemp]

I hope DeathSantis stays home in the governor's mansion for Hurricane Ian. I hope Ian destroys it. Unless, of course, he fled to Mexico like Ted Crud.

 

[newyorkguy]

Are the attempts to address the illegal entry issue bickering or foolish? I don't really agree because I think it goes to the heart of what DeSantis did and the support he gets from the right.

The wingers want to establish that the asylum seekers 'entered the country illegally.' Therefore 'they broke the law,' and what do we call people who break the law? As the library cop told Jerry on a Seinfeld episode, "We call them criminals!" That plays into the following right wing meme. "Biden's granting asylum to criminals. Or trying to." As I quoted someone writing on another forum, that's bad because:

People's lives might literally be at stake if the wrong kind of idiocy is allowed to spread too far.

So I'm willing to take the 'fool' hit because in this case I think it's important to push back.

 

[Warp12]

The wingers want to establish that the asylum seekers 'entered the country illegally.' Therefore 'they broke the law,' and what do we call people who break the law?

...

So I'm willing to take the 'fool' hit because in this case I think it's important to push back.

What exactly are you "pushing back" against? Reality?

First, it is painfully obvious that these individuals entered the country illegally. Because "unauthorized" is really not an ambiguous term. To most, anyway.

But, let's pretend they didn't, just for fun. There are still tens of thousands being apprehended each month, entering illegally. And, at least at some points, those with special exceptions make up nearly half of them. And the administration embraces these illegals upon capture.

At the end of day, whether the MV Venezuelans entered legally or not (they didn't), they are small potatoes compared to the number of illegals with exceptions that are swarming our border.

As I have said repeatedly, this stunt by DeSantis is symbolic. And it is doing a good job of drawing attention to the way that Dem's are embracing criminal action at our border, apparently.