DeSantis Martha's Vineyard Stunt

[Stacyhs]

How about 8 USC 1159: Adjustment of status of refugees?



ETA: That's part of the laws regarding refugee and asylee applications, and tracks pretty well with the shooting analogy. If you kill someone, and investigation/trial doesn't show a good reason, it's murder. Otherwise, it's justified self-defense. Likewise, if you claim asylum/refugee status and investigation/trial shows you don't qualify, it's illegal entry. Otherwise, it's not.

Notice the word "adjustment"...that means a change in status. From the same statute:

(b) Requirements for adjustment
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, in the Secretary's or the Attorney General's discretion and under such regulations as the Secretary or the Attorney General may prescribe, may adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence the status of any alien granted asylum who-
(1) applies for such adjustment,
(2) has been physically present in the United States for at least one year after being granted asylum,
(3) continues to be a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title or a spouse or child of such a refugee,

(4) is not firmly resettled in any foreign country, and

(5) is admissible (except as otherwise provided under subsection (c)) as an immigrant under this chapter at the time of examination for adjustment of such alien.

ETA:

So, "be regarded as lawfully admitted" doesn't mean what it says, gotcha.

It means that they are then considered as lawfully admitted from that point. That's why their status was 'adjusted'...from illegal to legal.

 

[gnome]

And, if DeSantis is prosecuted, so be it. I have already stated, "let's see the evidence in court".

Why is it "let's see the evidence in court, and whatever the outcome so be it" for a politician, but you're perfectly ready to condemn the asylum seeker's presumed crimes?

 

[newyorkguy]

Crossing the border without inspection, even to legally apply for asylum, is not protected by law? But if the asylum seeker presents themself at a Port of Entry to request asylum, is that legal? How else can they do it?

But I think this is where we are getting out of our depth. As RY wrote, we really need a legal opinion. Still, it seems to me that if someone seeking asylum presents themselves at a Port of Entry to request asylum, in a legal sense they have not yet entered the U.S. They're asking to be allowed in so that they can present an asylum request.

As the director of the International Rescue Committee put it, there's no other way they can do it. "You just show up."

 

[Warp12]

Indeed

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/dhdnkavojc9u4hv/Border%20Town%20Beebe%20Plain.jpg?raw=1[/qimg] [qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/lj84fmp11guuxzn/Border%20Town%20Nogales.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]
Beebe Plain: Canada/USA Border town.............................. ..........................................Nogales: Mexico/USA Border town

I bet like 50-100,000 undocumented citizens are crossing that street marker for illegal entry with intent of foreign residence, monthly. Good comparison.

Heightened security measures have bolstered the area where the international boundary cuts through two villages and several houses. Barriers have gone up in recent years, officer patrols have increased and security cameras and technology use has risen.

For residents, security changes on the northern border have reached the tipping point.

The only way to access their homes by vehicle is passing through a U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry. Previously, they had been able to wave at officers on their way back into town. Then that changed to a policy whereby residents were asked to stop and report under the canopy of the customs building.

https://vtdigger.org/2018/08/27/lives-border-residents-disrupted-tighter-restrictions/


Could these arguments/comparisons get any more stupid? I think so, based on what I have seen so far. But this is how far some will go in their attempts to make this an issue of race.

 

[Norman Alexander]

No, they cannot accept asylum applicants. You are confusing two separate things.

From Politifact:

Yes they can. They have in the past. Some countries do now.
Just that it is not universally nor uniformly applied or agreed, now and in the past. It seems to be a matter mostly of how the countries involved want to play it legally. Have a long read.

https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/protect...plomatic-asylum-report-secretary-general.html

As for Julian Assange, the London police could not enter the embassy due to its immunity from being searched, not because it is Ecuadorian territory.

https://www.business-standard.com/a...-embassy-what-happens-now-119041200449_1.html

A distinction without an effective difference, really. Assange was accepted as an asylum seeker by Ecuador because he walked in the door and applied for it. Had they rejected him, he would have been escorted back out the door. Their problem was they could not get him off their property in the UK without traversing UK territory, where Assange would have been arrested. And later, he was.

The issue about refusal of refugees raises the sticky, thorny issue of "refoulment" - pushing asylum seekers back into a territory where they may be at unjustified risk of arrest and/or harm. Given that most asylum seekers are doing so in order to escape or avoid exactly that risk of arrest and/or harm, it is considered an international obligation to accept asylum seekers initially. Until such time as their situation is assessed for the risk or refoulment. Not all countries meet this obligation. Australia has been through this situation in recent years, with certain sections of our recently changed (and unlamented) conservative government being keen on "pushing back the boat people to where they came".

 

[newyorkguy]

This is the process an asylum seeker without documents (visa, passport) goes through upon arrival at a Port of Entry to request asylum. It is based on information presented by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank that promotes bipartisanship.

• Individual appears at a Port of Entry (PoE)
• Does the individual, when interviewed by CBP [Customs Border Patrol], express a fear of return to their home country?

If the answer is yes, they do express a fear-

• Asylum seeker is placed in detention until they receive a credible fear interview to determine if they have an arguable case for asylum.
  
  If the interviewer determines they do have a credible fear-
  
  
• Asylum seeker is either kept in detention or paroled until their day in front of an immigration judge, who makes the determination of their asylum status.

Bipartisan Policy Center link

Remember this all started with the assertion that asylum seekers are criminals -- guilty of illegal entry -- and none of them should be admitted.

 

[Stacyhs]

Crossing the border without inspection, even to legally apply for asylum, is not protected by law?

Correct. But once they apply for asylum, their status is 'adjusted' to legal. If their application is eventually denied, they are then deported because their status reverts to being here illegally.

But if the asylum seeker presents themself at a Port of Entry to request asylum, is that legal? How else can they do it?

Yes, it is legal because they followed the legal step of presenting themselves for inspection at a P of E. The other way it to do it the way many of them are doing it: by crossing illegally via the Rio Grande or the Yuma Gap, for example, and then turning themselves in to Border Patrol.

But I think this is where we are getting out of our depth. As RY wrote, we really need a legal opinion.

The law is quite clear about this and has been cited several times. Frankly, some people are making this much more complicated than it really is.

Still, it seems to me that if someone seeking asylum presents themselves at a Port of Entry to request asylum, in a legal sense they have not yet entered the U.S. They're asking to be allowed in so that they can present an asylum request.

The law states clearly that to apply for asylum, one must apply while on US soil OR at a port of entry. Those are the two stipulations.

As the director of the International Rescue Committee put it, there's no other way they can do it. "You just show up."

You've taken that quote out of context. In context:

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."

He's saying that an asylum seeker can just show up at a port of entry to ask for entrance to apply for asylum. You don't have to have a visa or other authorization...you just show up. It's decided there if you will be admitted legally.

 

[Warp12]

This is the process an asylum seeker without documents (visa, passport) goes through upon arrival at a Port of Entry to request asylum. It is based on information presented by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank that promotes bipartisanship.

• Individual appears at a Port of Entry (PoE)
• Does the individual, when interviewed by CBP [Customs Border Patrol], express a fear of return to their home country?

If the answer is yes, they do express a fear-

• Asylum seeker is placed in detention until they receive a credible fear interview to determine if they have an arguable case for asylum.
  
  If the interviewer determines they do have a credible fear-
  
  
• Asylum seeker is either kept in detention or paroled until their day in front of an immigration judge, who makes the determination of their asylum status.

Bipartisan Policy Center link

Remember this all started with the assertion that asylum seekers are criminals -- guilty of illegal entry -- and none of them should be admitted.

Huh? What kind of revisionist history is this?

It all started with the assertion that those who cross illegally (not at ports of entry) have entered illegally. And my opinion is that they should not be free from deportation, as they are with the special exception.

It's nothing at all about people seeking asylum at an official port of entry. Where do people come up with this stuff? I mean we have been arguing about illegal crossings for page after page over the past couple of days.

Jesus.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes they can. They have in the past. Some countries do now.

If you read carefully, I have been discussing the law for applying for asylum at United States embassies consulates. I have not been discussing OTHER countries' laws or practices regarding asylum. So, NO: US embassies /consulates cannot accept applications for asylum. If they could, such evidence could and would be provided. It has not been. On the other hand, quotes and citations that they cannot has been abundantly provided.

Just that it is not universally nor uniformly applied or agreed, now and in the past. It seems to be a matter mostly of how the countries involved want to play it legally. Have a long read.

https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/protect...plomatic-asylum-report-secretary-general.html

This link is from the UN Refugee Council. Additionally, it discusses GRANTING temporary asylum inside an embassy, on a warship, etc. which is not the same as someone filing an application for asylum. Granting temporary asylum at an embassy, on a warship, etc. does not mean they have been granted entrance into the US as an asylum seeker.

A distinction without an effective difference, really.

No. "Immunity from search" and "being territory/soil" are most certainly NOT "A distinction without an effective difference". Your claim is just an attempt to distract from the fact that you cannot provide any evidence to support your stand.

Assange was accepted as an asylum seeker by Ecuador because he walked in the door and applied for it. Had they rejected him, he would have been escorted back out the door. Their problem was they could not get him off their property in the UK without traversing UK territory, where Assange would have been arrested. And later, he was.

That, again, is Ecuador, not the US which has been the country we are discussing. What Ecuador does has no bearing on what US law is: US embassies/consulates cannot accept applications for asylum because the are not US territory. This has been explicitly stated in the several citations I've provided. If you choose to believe otherwise, then that's on you.

The issue about refusal of refugees raises the sticky, thorny issue of "refoulment" - pushing asylum seekers back into a territory where they may be at unjustified risk of arrest and/or harm. Given that most asylum seekers are doing so in order to escape or avoid exactly that risk of arrest and/or harm, it is considered an international obligation to accept asylum seekers initially. Until such time as their situation is assessed for the risk or refoulment. Not all countries meet this obligation. Australia has been through this situation in recent years, with certain sections of our recently changed (and unlamented) conservative government being keen on "pushing back the boat people to where they came".

I have never said otherwise/disagreed with the above so why you're bringing this up to me is irrelevant. Are you under the impression that my stating facts about US immigration law is somehow being anti-refugee or anti-immigration? If so, then you are mistaken.

 

[newyorkguy]

I quoted an NPR report that, "That's significant because these migrants generally cannot be expelled under the pandemic border restrictions known as Title 42. And immigration authorities are mostly releasing them into the United States, where they can seek asylum. I got this reply.

Yeah, it puts a disease-laden, poorly-vetted face on these migrants. Talk about horrible policy. They are illegals and should be deported. Nauseating.

If you later refined that position forgive me if I didn't see it. I'll admit, I mostly skip over your posts in this thread. All 119 of them.

 

[Warp12]

If you later refined that position forgive me if I didn't see it. I'll admit, I mostly skip over your posts in this thread. All 119 of them.

Not only have I have clarified my position numerous times (to me, they are still illegals, despite what the law says), but I also made it clear that I was Initially unaware that they had entered illegally. I didn't know such an exception existed, and I am 100% against it.

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, if you are going to research the.number of posts I have in the thread, but not read them, then you really shouldn't even be commenting on such. You clearly are ill-informed about what the current debate is over.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is the process an asylum seeker without documents (visa, passport) goes through upon arrival at a Port of Entry to request asylum. It is based on information presented by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank that promotes bipartisanship.

• Individual appears at a Port of Entry (PoE)
• Does the individual, when interviewed by CBP [Customs Border Patrol], express a fear of return to their home country?

If the answer is yes, they do express a fear-

• Asylum seeker is placed in detention until they receive a credible fear interview to determine if they have an arguable case for asylum.
  
  If the interviewer determines they do have a credible fear-
  
  
• Asylum seeker is either kept in detention or paroled until their day in front of an immigration judge, who makes the determination of their asylum status.

Bipartisan Policy Center link

Remember this all started with the assertion that asylum seekers are criminals -- guilty of illegal entry -- and none of them should be admitted.

Nope. No one, not even Warp, has claimed that an asylum seeker who goes through port of entry and is admitted is a criminal or guilty of illegal entry. You need to read more carefully.

 

[newyorkguy]

Not.only have I have clarified my position numerous times (to me, they are still illegals, despite what the law says)...

Read more carefully? I seem to be doing okay.

 

[Warp12]

Read more carefully? I seem to be doing okay.

No, you are not. Because at no point am I asserting that the law deems these migrants illegal after they have sought asylum. Nor am I claiming that those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry are illegals.

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.

I think you are going way beyond willful ignorance in your assertions.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I have never said otherwise/disagreed with the above [refoulment] so why you're bringing this up to me is irrelevant. Are you under the impression that my stating facts about US immigration law is somehow being anti-refugee or anti-immigration? If so, then you are mistaken.

No, I'm not saying US immigration law is anti-refugee or anti-immigration. Not at all. I'm also agreeing with you that application for asylum necessarily involves illegal entry. So just settle, petal.

I raised other countries and the UN discussion simply to show that the USA does not operate in isolation of other countries with its treatment of asylum seekers. Nor has it been consistent or even logical, from time to time.

For example, the treatment of asylum seekers who arrive by plane seems to be somewhat different than those at the southern border. Should I as an Australian arrive on a flight at LAX and apply for asylum at the passport control, I would probably not be granted it despite being white, English-speaking, non-criminal, non-poor, and well educated and employable. It would be refused because there is no possibility of refoulment should the application be refused. Also, good joke, koala bear, kangaroo, move along, have a nice day.

And yet someone just like me is "an illegal" and gets deported...

Australian traveller strip-searched, held in US prison and deported over little-known entry requirement

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-deported-over-little-known-entry-requirement

So it seems there is more dependence on who is doing the processing and how narky they feel like being. Given the brown, poor Venezuelans are being considered by some as "illegals" by simply crossing the wrong border, that gives lie to the capricious nature of US border policing and who is involved.

 

[arayder]

Not.only have I have clarified my position numerous times (to me, they are still illegals, despite what the law says), but I also made it clear that I was Initially unaware that they had entered illegally. I didn't know such an exception existed, and I am 100% against it.

Okay so you were wrong.

So what is your point? You think they are "illegal" but the law says they get a new status once they apply for asylum.

You are against that?

So. . .?

Now, if you are going to research the.number of posts I have in the thread, but not read them, then you really shouldn't even be commenting on such. You clearly are ill-informed about what the current debate is over.

Oh, for crying out loud, Johny One Note, we knew what you were driving at in your first couple of posts. . .days and pages ago.

So what's your real point here?

 

[arayder]

I think you are going way beyond willful ignorance in your assertions.

In what alternate universe does recognizing the folly of your notions of what the law is constitute willful ignorance?

 

[arayder]

No, you are not. Because at no point am I asserting that the law deems these migrants illegal after they have sought asylum. Nor am I claiming that those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry are illegals.

So what's your point?

 

[smartcooky]

Why is it "let's see the evidence in court, and whatever the outcome so be it" for a politician, but you're perfectly ready to condemn the asylum seeker's presumed crimes?

Mudpeople.

 

[smartcooky]

Not only have I have clarified my position numerous times (to me, they are still illegals, despite what the law says), but I also made it clear that I was Initially unaware that they had entered illegally. I didn't know such an exception existed, and I am 100% against it.




Now, if you are going to research the.number of posts I have in the thread, but not read them, then you really shouldn't even be commenting on such. You clearly are ill-informed about what the current debate is over.